Talk:War of 1812/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

More background on the slavery issue is needed

The discussion regarding slavery is not really adequate. Undoubtedly the British did offer freedom to slaves that fought for the Crown, but not enough explanation of British anti-slavery opinion is given, particularly the Slave Trade Act of the British Parliament and the political context of anti-slavery opinion in Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807

One could be forgiven for thinking that the only motive for offering freedom to slaves fighting for the Crown, was simply an expedient military one. The glib comment about the anti-slave movement in Britain being quite advanced by 1812 is not enough to contextualize how British opinion had swung conclusively against slavery by the start of the 19th Century.

RJN 03/18/2012—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.180.216 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering that slavery was not outlawed in the Empire until 1831 advanced indeed.Tirronan (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

See the Act Against Slavery 1793. TFD (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The info that is in the article appears to be, for the most part, half-baked data sourced solely from other wiki pages, which has not been verified against secondary source material. There is the double-edged sword of press-ganging, which was deemed to be a necessary evil, in order that the Royal Navy's ships could be manned. The Royal Navy's abhorrence of slavery can be seen to derive from personal experiences with this policy, and let us not forget that this was one of the stated reasons for the declaration of war. Keith H99 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Ghent

The article states that:

"By 1814, both sides had achieved their main war goals and were weary of a costly war that offered little but stalemate. They both sent delegations to a neutral site in Ghent, Belgium. The negotiations began in early August and concluded on December 24, when a final agreement was signed; both sides had to ratify it before it could take effect. Meanwhile both sides planned new invasions. In 1814 the British began blockading New England ports, reducing American foreign trade to a trickle, but hurting British interests in the West Indies and Canada that had depended on that trade. New England was considering secession.[106][107] But although American privateers found chances of success much reduced, with most British merchantmen now sailing in convoy, privateering continued to prove troublesome to the British, as shown by high insurance rates.[108] British landowners grew weary of high taxes, and colonial interests and merchants called on the government to reopen trade with the U.S. by ending the war.[109]

Britain, which had forces in uninhabited areas near Lake Superior and Lake Michigan and two towns in Maine, demanded the cession of large areas, plus turning most of the Midwest into a neutral zone for Indians. American public opinion was outraged when Madison published the demands; even the Federalists were now willing to fight on. The British were planning three invasions. One force burned Washington but failed to capture Baltimore, and sailed away when its commander was killed. In New York State, 10,000 British veterans were marching south until a decisive defeat at the Battle of Plattsburgh forced them back to Canada.[nb 2] Nothing was known of the fate of the third large invasion force aimed at capturing New Orleans and southwest. The Prime Minister wanted the Duke of Wellington to command in Canada and finally win the war; Wellington said that he would go to America but he believed he was needed in Europe.[110][111][112]"

For a start Ghent was not neutral, it (and indeed all of Belgium) had been garrisoned by the British following the defeat of Napoleon and the negotiations were entirely under British control.

As for Britain demanding 'cession of large areas' I can find no reasonable citations for that, the British ambassador on passing through Ghent (on his way to the congress of Vienna) told his staff to offer Status Quo Ante Bellum. Britain, from what I've read, was keen to maintain trading links, and was unwilling to send troops from Europe to beat the Americans - indeed almost al of the troops which had fought in the war were from the West-Indes or were Canadian Militia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewatk (talk • contribs) 10:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Which three theatres of war?

In the lede or introductory section (above the Table of Contents), my original explanation of the three theatres of war (Atlantic, Northern frontier & South, later added to or modified by others) has been reworked many times over in good faith by editors who already know far more than I ever will about the War of 1812. Unfortunately, the current paragraph, after promising to list three theatres, becomes so murky that an uninitiated reader (for whom this section is largely intended) would have difficulty figuring out which three theatres the editors have in mind:

The war was fought in three theatres. At sea, warships and privateers of both sides attacked each other's merchant ships. The British blockaded the Atlantic coast of the U.S. and mounted large-scale raids in the later stages of the war. American successes at sea were characterized by single ship duels against British frigates, and combat against British provincial vessels on the Great Lakes, such as at the action on Lake Erie. Both land and naval battles were fought on the frontier, which ran along the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence River. The South and the Gulf coast saw major land battles in which the American forces destroyed Britain's Indian allies and repulsed the main British invasion force at New Orleans. Both sides invaded each other's territory, but these invasions were unsuccessful or temporary...

I tried fixing this by restoring the original (1), (2) and (3) [or first, secondly and third] at the appropriate points, but that doesn't work because one sentence deals with both oceanic battles and ones on the Great Lakes, such as Lake Erie. What would be the best way of handling this? —— Shakescene (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it's hard to tell if the Great Lakes are included as part of a naval theater along with the Atlantic or as part of the frontier theater. I believe its the latter, and think it would make sense to not mention the Great Lakes next to the Atlantic then. Hot Stop 20:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

After six weeks of silence, I decided I'd have to try and fix this without assistance. This is my new paragraph, which can certainly use some improvements:

The war was fought in three theatres. (1) at sea, warships and privateers of both sides attacked each other's merchant ships; the British blockaded the Atlantic coast of the U.S. and mounted large-scale raids in the later stages of the war; (2) both land and naval battles were fought on the U.S.–Canadian frontier, which ran along the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence River; and (3) the American South and Gulf Coast saw major land battles in which the American forces destroyed Britain's Indian allies and repulsed the main British invasion force at New Orleans. Both sides invaded each other's territory, but these invasions were unsuccessful or temporary. At the end of the war, both sides occupied parts of the other's land, but these areas were restored by the Treaty of Ghent.

The main problem I see is that as currently cast, it says that the King's Indian allies were smashed in the South, without mentioning what I think as a complete non-expert must have been equally significant: the defeat of the Indians in the Northwest. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Parish and the St. Lawrence Valley

I read an article regarding the theory that David Parish's financing of the American effort impacted the actions of U.S. Forces in how they prosecuted the Invasion of Canada. The book which the article writes about is briefly mentioned in Parish's article, but has no mention in this article. What, if any, inclusion should content referenced to the article linked should be included in this subject?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unclear pronoun (minor improvement) - 5th paragraph under Course of the War

Suggest a rewording to improve comprehension.

In the 5th paragraph under "Course of the War", appears the sentence: In 1813, the Americans won control of Lake Erie in the Battle of Lake Erie and cut off British and Native American forces in the west from their supply base; they were decisively defeated by General William Henry Harrison's forces on their retreat towards Niagara at the Battle of the Thames in October 1813. The pronoun "they" after the semicolon should be replaced with something like "these forces", as it may otherwise be seen as referring to "the Americans", the subject of the preceding clause. 69.94.225.179 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

no it's clear enough. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Pop Culture reference

I believe the pop culture reference "The Canadian comedy troupe Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie released a popular parody song in 2000 called the "The White House Burned (War of 1812)" is completely out of context and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterproof-breathable (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To all our american friends

To all our american friends

This war is currently the subject of propaganda from the Harper governement. In Québec the view form our biggest historian : Jacques Lacoursière (and many other like him) explains that Canada existed well before the british invaded it in 1759. This war against the american is NOT celebrated at all in Quebec. In fact those same british will soo after turn their canon against us in 1837 (That war is our national pride in Québec). Salaberry is NOT a hero for a significant portion of people in Québec. His victory is mostly NOT celebrated either (exept by the english). So this section of the article is pure fantasy : (The French Population was 650 000 and the English 450 000...so canada was a french speaking country at that time)

Canada also emerged from the war with a heightened sense of national feeling and solidarity, having repelled multiple American invasions. Battles such as the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of Crysler's Farm became iconic for Canadians. In Canada, especially Ontario, memory of the war has immense national significance, as the invasions were largely perceived by Canadians as an annexation attempt by America seeking to expand US territory. In Canada, numerous ceremonies are scheduled in 2012 to commemorate a Canadian victory.

This POV bias is so bad it should be removed right now. This is an encyclopedia for facts not POV. But then again all the article is full of this. EMvague (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, you never said what was wrong with it. Which part is incorrect? Did Canada(at least English-speaking Canada) not emerge from the war with a heightened sense of national feeling and solidarity? Did battles such as Queenston Heights and Crysler's Farm not become iconic for Canadians?In Canada, especially Ontario, does memory of the war not have immense national significance?Were the invasions not largely perceived by Canadians as an annexation attempt by America seeking to expand US territory? Are numerous ceremonies in 2012 not scheduled to commemorate a Canadian victory?

I see no POV there whatsoever. And in fact 450,00 was the English speaking population of Upper Canada at the time. 150,00 was the English-speaking population of Lower Canada, modern Quebec. 450,000 was the French-speaking population of Lower Canada. Put the two English speaking populations populations together and you have 550,00. This means that there was in fact an English-speaking majority in Canada, making Canada most definitely, by your definition, an English-speaking country.And read the article on Wikipedia:NPOV . ("subject of propaganda" , "american friends" "turn cannons against us). Rwenonah (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly in English Canada, the war was very important. Check out the words of the second verse of The Maple Leaf Forever for example. Dabbler (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A song virtually no one in Canada knows any more. I agree with the original comment. This war is the subject of a propaganda campaign. I've lived in Canada my entire life and this war is certainly not a part of the national conciousness. It is glossed over in the history curriculum and its historical significance is questionable. Cmcl14 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It should say "English Canada". TFD (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks the article is not neutral enough for Wikipedia should find multiple, independent, published reliable sources that verifying that assertion and then add that information along with its sources to the article. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

let's not forget the Maritimes and Newfoundland, which played their roles. Most of all let's not forget the First Nations--they lost the war of 1812 and to that extent Canada lost the war. Rjensen (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Were Canada and the First nations synonomous?No, they were not. Some First Nations fought against the US, but others, such as the Cherokees, fought with the Americans(and were later forced onto the Trail of Tears). While the First Nations did lose the war, Canada lost nothing whatsover due to that. In addition, most of the First Nations which fought in the War of 1812 lived in the modern-day United States, and only fought with the British due to the brutal treatment Americans gave to First Nations before and during(and after, for that matter) the war.In fact many Canadian First Nations were awarded a massive land area for their assistance(the Six Nations Reserve).Only American First Nations lost the war-they ended up in the United States after the treaties were signed and suffered through the Indian Removal era. Rwenonah (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

actually a main issue in 1812 was the British plan (as late as Sept 1814) to create an independent Indian nation in what became the Midwest. Are the First Nations part of Canada? well yes indeed that is the official Canadian ideology today. They lost their dream of independence as promised by the british and for which they fought the Americans, both in the Great Lakes region and in the Southeast (where Jackson destroyed the main Indian enemy & forced them into Spanish Florida) Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Observe the "Belligerents" section at the top of the War of 1812 page. Look in the US column. Read Choctaw-Cherokee-Creek allies. Those tribes helped the US (not that they got anything for it-they were treated identically to British-allied tribes after the war). As for that being the official Canadian ideology, official according to who? The "official Canadian ideology" (whatever that means) is that Canada drove off a larger, more powerful enemy and that that should be celebrated. The First Nations helped, but when Tecumseh's confederacy collapsed they were abandoned in the negotiations, as they had been several times before. There was no promise of independence, only a hope that the British would be, in effect, nicer than the Americans. Canadian First Nations remained in Canada. Some were rewarded. Most were given reservations. They did not lose. American First Nations were treated badly for the next 50 years. They really lost. Canada lost nothing due to their loss, though except a possible ally in further conflicts which...never came. And "driving off the main enemy".. the Creek War was what is now called a pushover. 7000 militia all armed with muskets attacking 4000 natves with only 1000guns. No wonder they were driven off. The only surprise there was that Jackson didn't totally destroy the Red Sticks,never mind allowing the force to escape intact into a neutral country.Rwenonah (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Canada" was not a sovereign nation at the time of the war of 1812. It was part of the British Empire. The United States declared war on the British Empire. The war was essentially fought to stalemate between the two main belligerents, the United States and the British Empire. The UK doesn't even see this as a separate war, they see it as a conflict related to the war being fought with france. This: "Canada also emerged from the war with a heightened sense of national feeling and solidarity, having repelled multiple American invasions. Battles such as the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of Crysler's Farm became iconic for English-speaking Canadians. In Canada, especially Ontario, memory of the war retains national significance, as the invasions were largely perceived by Canadians as an annexation attempt by America seeking to expand US territory. In Canada, numerous ceremonies are scheduled in 2012 to commemorate a Canadian victory, despite the defeat of the First Nations." makes no sense whatsoever. Not only is it "biased", it's horribly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.10.165 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with your first two sentences, but the UK doesn't really think much about the war at all. As for the rest of it, it is perfectly sensible, accurate and unbiassed in describing the effect and perceptions of the war on English speaking Canadians (as in the residents of the colony of Upper Canada in 1812-15, and by extension, the later English speaking residents of the federated Canadian Dominion). And as for the celebrations and ceremonies, my tax bill speaks for itself. Dabbler (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

How Wiki editors refought the war of 1812

My Wikimania presentation of July 13, 2012 is online at http://americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/1812b-Wk.ppt and I would appreciate some feedback. Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If possible, it would be nice if Ian Furst could receive some recognition/attribution for adding that "War of 1812" map (File:KENSETT MAP CANADA 1812.jpg) 3 days ago on July 10th...it's a great addition.

Nice overview...about the only difference I would have made is show the actual article's changes from year to year, the form/references/illustrations (maybe even how high emotions run sometimes about the subject) or perhaps add a short presentation about "An Hour [or A Day] in the Life of an Article".

Was the War of 1812 Portal/all the associated articles mentioned in your talk? The breadth of knowledge on WP about subjects in general just astounds me sometimes. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestions--I will consider them as I translate the presentation from ppt to ascii for a journal submission. Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My comment is about sources, where Wikipedia usually tries when possible to use those relatively accessible to everyone, unlike JSTOR or High-Beam (or ProQuest), only available to academics and those who can afford to pay. (Otherwise, debates over whether something's been properly cited, or whether another source is more reliable, can become very remote from an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and discuss.) That's why there's a bias towards those 21st-century newspaper web-sites which haven't completely retreated behind a pay-wall. Ideally, more-scholarly, "peer-reviewed" sources that are still free to all would be used for more references and citations, but that's not always possible. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice presentation. It gives a good look into the mechanics of how a Wikipedia article is written by so many authors. The only assertion I would question is on p 32, which says "...the popular Canadian view that totally excludes the First Nations of 1812—and thus rejects multiculturalism". In the absence of a reference to a survey or other such data, I can only look at the number of internet articles which can be found by a Google search of articles from Canada that contain the terms "First Nations" and "War of 1812" [1]. There are currently almost 100,000 such articles. Granted that number is inflated by the current focus on the bicentennial of the war, and I certainly haven't looked at any more than a tiny fraction of the articles, but I think that these results indicate that the role of Canada's First Nations in the War of 1812 is not ignored. Regards. Silverchemist (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would mirror the comments by Silverchemist. Anecdotally, I can say that Canada's First Nations has been a rigorous part of Canadian History course, including their role in the War of 1812. The reference books I use on the topic of the War certainly talk about Native peoples role on both sides of the border. --Ian Furst (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice presentation and probably accurately echos my opinions of the article and Wikipedia as well. It is rather nice that someone took a big picture look and snapshot of Wikipedia and this article. I hadn't a clue that I had edited that much on this single article. Enjoying retirement cheers.Tirronan (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Country, not Oregon Territory

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

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

what about the under 30s?

 Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second War of Independence say the RS

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

Second War of Independence

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

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

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

So the Americans wanted independance from an Indian puppet state?

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

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

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

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

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

This main supplyer argument would be of no validity in those days. One could suggest that Arnold Peter Møller of the Compagnie Madsen A/S was an ally of the Germans. A.P.Møller was in essence the defence industry of Denmark, which in that case would mean that Denmark was an ally a part of Germany. Quite fortunate for the Danes, they never got treated in that order. If end-user-statements existed 200 years ago, what did they look like? --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That is a bit like saying that Norway is not fully independant until Jämtland and Härjedalen is returned to Norway...when in actual fact it was Denmark that lost these two provinces. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you check the British newspapers of the era it wasn't just America that was attempting to land grab. A quick review of the actions by virtually every European state involved with the Congress of Vienna was rather eye opening. The British had been very vocal about curtailing the American mercantile fleet and reducing the threat that a continent wide power would present. In point of fact the American merchant fleet did not recover from the war of 1812 in the short term so they succeeded at least in part. The curtailment of American expansion was an epic fail obviously. America was seen as a long term threat to British Imperial interests. There were still British MP's pushing for colonization of California as late as the 1830's. The New Orleans campaign was in part to grab the mouth of the Mississippi and cut America off from the rest of the continent. Proposals were made to maintain control of the river during the Ghent discussions. I've said it once and I will say it again, in this age there were no countries wearing white hats. Both sides were after their own long term best interests. Ronald there are so many primary sources available you could write a book fairly quickly on the subject. I don't think this is a point you can win. Tirronan (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

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

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

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

Mobile; US gained territory: Question

In order to allow space for other discussions, I moved this 77,000 byte thread moved to a new Talk subpage Talk:War of 1812/Mobile, which other editors may wish to add to their Watchlists. Any technical adjustments and corrections to connect the subpage better or more clearly to this page are more than welcome. Happy holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Laura Secord a Loyalist?

laura Secord married a Loyalist, James Secord, but her father fought on the side of the Americans in the Revolutionary War, and didn't move the family to Upper Canada until 1795. Does Laura inherit the Loyalist status from her husband? Even if she does, is there any reason to label her as a Loyalist in the article? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent change

Was wondering what readers think of the recent change from separate Footnotes/Citations sections to a single Notes section. Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2013

The US defeated all of the British invasion attempts into the US, not two out of three. Crboyle1 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: What part of the article are you referring to? What exact sentence are you asking to be changed? Please copy and past the exact sentence here. Pol430 talk to me 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

He is referring to the infobox under Result where it states: "US invasions of British Canada repulsed; two of three British incursions into US territory repulsed: military stalemate." This does not make any sense when the entire war is examined. The US still held Fort Amherstburg/Fort Malden at the end of the war so obviously not all US invasions were repulsed. The British at the end of war held part of what is now Maine, Fort Niagara, Fort Mackinac, a large area of land west of Lake Michigan, Tangier Island in the Chesapeake Bay, and part of Georgia. Clearly not all British invasions were repulsed. If you look at the infoboxes for the Spanish-American War and the Mexican—American War you will notice that the Result sections are much more succinct than the one here. Why is that? My guess is that it reflects the controversial nature of the war. Dwalrus (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm marking this request as answered with no changes made, per the explanation above. Pol430 talk to me 21:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013

Add "All American invasions of the Canadas repulsed", and "American Capital Destroyed" in War Results Column. War results currently ignore British Empire victories that forced the status quo ante bellum that the US was forced to accept in the war they started. 108.175.230.201 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 Question: - Could you be more spcific as to the "British Empire victories" that should be added or any other specific info you believe is lacking.Moxy (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 Denied The request is denied. No sources were provided for the claims. μηδείς (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

GA

Has the notion of taking this article to GA following some initial cleanup been considered lately? Mkdw^talk 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

First Section Mentions

Since the American occupation of parts of Western Ontario is mentioned in the first section,shouldn't the British occupation of Maine and much at least technically American territory in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin be also mentioned? Many people probably only bother to read the first section,and this seems a major gap. Anyone disagree? Rwenonah (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the end of the war lines of control should be mentioned in the infobox. If it isn't too big already,this seems relatively important,and,again,many people will only read the first part. Rwenonah (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

the topic is a minor one and is well covered in the lede, which states: "Both sides invaded each other's territory, but these invasions were unsuccessful or temporary. At the end of the war, both sides occupied parts of the other's land, but these areas were restored by the Treaty of Ghent." Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But then why bother mentioning the American occupation of parts of Western Ontario. It wasn't a majr factor in the war,and I can see no good reason for its inclusion. And the first section of the article is too long already,so why not remove it? Rwenonah (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

there are two issues: the US occupation of western Ontario was not important for US-British relations BUT it was decisive for US-Indian relations. It broke the Tecumseh confederacy threat to American settlers in Ohio - Michigan - Indiana area.

in the war of 1812 france came and helped the United States of Amercia and we wer battling aginset the Native americans were the United States can get its freedom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.34.81 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

American Expansionism References

The first sentence in the American expansionism section is as follows: "Historians have considered the idea that American expansionism was one cause of the war. The American expansion into the Northwest was being blocked by Indians and that was a major cause. More problematic is the question whether an American war goal was to acquire Canadian lands (especially western Ontario), or whether it was planned to seize the area temporarily as a bargaining chip. The American desire for Canadian land has been a staple in Canadian public opinion since the 1830s, and was much discussed among historians before 1940, but is rarely cited by experts any more.(Hacker (1924); Pratt (1925). Goodman (1941) refuted the idea and even Pratt gave it up. Pratt (1955))"

All very well and good,except that isn't a reference. Its' just a series of names and numbers,possibly referring to some publications,but not actually specifiying what those are,let alone supporting the sentence in question. Unless someone can clear this up,I'll remove it.Rwenonah (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rwenonah seems to be ignorant of the main scholarly sources of the old ideas he espouses. Those articles by (Hacker (1924); Pratt (1925) & Goodman (1941) are all in the references where they belong and always have been. Hacker is there [Hacker, Louis M. (March 1924). "Western Land Hunger and the War of 1812: A Conjecture". Mississippi Valley Historical Review X (4): 365–395];] and Pratt, Julius W. (1925). Expansionists of 1812. Rjensen (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations,we now have all the publications. Is there any way to tell if the authors interacted in the way seemingly described in the reference(where is the refuting and the giving up)? Since some of these sources present the opposite idea shown in the sentence,why are they in the reference? My apologies if my point was unclear earlier. And also,I dislike being accused of ignorance,a characteristic I share with a large percentage of humanity. Please refrain from this in the future,and also refrain from dragging totally separate discussions into this. I'm not espousing anything here,and I dislike the implication of bias. Rwenonah (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

You guys should really get your stats on casualties checked out. They are completely different from other sources. Also the number of casualties on this article is different from your article on US military casualties. =-\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.227.111 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What other sources are you referring to? What are the casualty figures that they give? Dwalrus (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the figures on the article on United States military casualties of war to reflect those given in this article. Dwalrus (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Balance: In Europe the War of 1812 only ever refers to the more important Franco-Russian conflict

In Europe the War of 1812 always means the prelude to the Napoleonic War, after which the famous 1812 Overture is named. This true War of 1812 was a far more important war in terms of world history, whereas the North American war was a rather tedious squabble between the US and Canada, very minor powers at the time. Unlike the European war, this one is virtually unknown in the majority of the world. Can't we rename this the article the "North American War of 1812"? Gymnophoria (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a hatnote for disambiguation. I think that "War of 1812" is more likely to refer to the conflict in North America which, btw was between the U.K. (not Canada) and the U.S. While the invasion of Russia may have had more significance, it is not usually called the "War of 1812", especially outside Russia. TFD (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is the fact you can learn something new every day. Up until now, I always believed Oxford was considered to be "in Europe". Fat&Happy (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also: There is no Napoleonic War. There was a Napoleonic Wars, but the Franco-Russian conflict was in the middle of those. and you would need sources to show that the War of 1812 is either unknown or that the French invasion of Russia is more commonly known by that name in Europe.Rwenonah (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I learned something too FH. I always thought the UK was a major power. Guess Gymnophoria thinks I'm wrong. Hot Stop 03:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Brands "Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times" incorrect

 Done

A small error under the heading "Honor and the second war of independence". The last sentence is misquoted:

... but was it also vindication of American identity.

should be:

... but it was also about vindication of American identity.

Sort of stands out since it is not a question, rather a statement.

I can't fix it myself, could someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.185.44 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Refers to Sailors coming from Britain

(Great)Britain is an Island to the East Of Ireland perhaps it should be updated to the then United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland(since 1801). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.51.193.234 (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Historians writing about the War of 1812 do not use United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland or even the UK. That includes British historians such as Jeremy Black and Jon Latimer. We use what RS uses and since they use Britain or Great Britain that is what is used here. Dwalrus (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian allies

The lead states "their Indian allies" my immediate thought was "how were the princely states of India involved in this war?". I think that the wording either needs changing to "their Red Indian allies" or "their Native American allies" -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

if you're looking at the War of 1812 article there's a good chance you heard about the Indians. If not it won't take long to figure it out. :) Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that this has apparently confused more than one British reader, and it's in the very first (lead) sentence, the one that's meant to explain and identify the article's substance. I'm tempted to delete "and their Indian allies" for the moment, until not only that ambiguity but also another one can be worked out. The other ambiguity comes from two "ands": the war is described as one between the U.S. and the British Empire and their Indian allies, suggesting either a three-cornered or a four-cornered conflict. Unfortunately, it isn't really possible to come up with a good substitute without a strong concept of who was fighting whom, one that may not be shared by every editor. (Was it, for example, the U.S. + allied tribes vs the British Empire + allied tribes? Or Britain & Indian allies vs the U.S.? Or if not precisely three-sided, are the Indian antagonists of the U.S. to be considered as having their own war to conduct [cf. USSR vs Finland embedded into World War II] ? ) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I tried to fix it with this new opening that covers the same points: "The War of 1812 was a 32-month military conflict between the United States on the one hand, and on the other Great Britain, its empire and its Indian allies in North America. The outcome resolved many issues which remained from the American War of Independence, but involved no boundary changes." Rjensen (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2013‎

Transitions

the transitions at the beginning of each page need to be updated. IE, there is no 'secondly' 'thirdly' 96.235.12.224 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Indian Allies unclear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except he actually said, "if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years men will still say, "This was their finest hour."[2] The speech that was broadcast was recorded by an actor. Regardless, one person's speech is not authoritative. He referred to himself as prime minister of England for example. TFD (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Varieties of English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The war was the last war fought on Canadian soil.

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

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

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

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

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

Raids based in Canada?

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian spelling

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

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

Looks like Canadian spelling to me [3]. Canadian spelling is a little more flexible than either British English or American spelling but is a mixture of both. I am sure like me many others are simply tired of all the reverts back to Canadian English as most think its a mixture of British English or American spelling thus think there are errors. Thus !Vote American spelling as its simply the most common. -- Moxy (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most noticeable difference between Canadian and UK spelling is "ize", but the OED preferred spelling is "ize" and they say both are correct in British English, and that consistency should be used.[4] TFD (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

IZE instead of ISE in the British context is referred to "Oxford Spelling". Its a mix in the UK, but in Australia and New Zealand we use ISE almost exclusively, ad IZE is seen (incorrectly) as incorrect US spelling. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that most readers of this article would even notice the difference in spelling whether ize or ise. As stated by others this article was started by someone who copied and pasted an article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and that was British English. Since this war was between Britain and the US, as well as being highly relevant to Canada, I don't see how the use of ise in Australia and New Zealand is of any relevance here.

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

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

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

"US" or "U.S."?

Both "US" and "U.S." are used throughout the text. Of course, this should be be consistent. Which would be best to use? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that both versions are accepted on Wikipedia. So I suggest we pick one and stick to it. There are far more instances of U.S. in the current article (about 3:1) so I have changed the US to that.

Incidentally with regard to your comment about unAmerican spelling, we are currently using the spelling of the largest American country. ;-) Dabbler (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to find some way to slip that one into convrsation ;) Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

According to an article in About.com, it is optional.[5] Personally I prefer "U.S.". TFD (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there an actual resolution to the discussion above about WP:ENGVAR? Because according to the MoS, "US" predominates in British English but "U.S." predominates in Canadian (and American) English. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer "US", but since it's now all been made consistently "U.S.", I can't see any compelling reason to change it. This is one of very, very few articles that can't be saved by pointing to ENGVAR, though I think some consistent version of Canadian is the "best" solution—it's basically what we have right now, and thus would require the least "cleanup". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have really seen this as regional dependant, it just comes down to whether you use full stop for Acronyms or not also for U.N etc. Don't think it really matters, as long as we pick one - which someone already has done!Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

British Invasions Repulsed????

In the infobox - results section, it says "British Invasions repulsed". That would be fine, except for the fact...they weren't.... :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

To quote the article itself "The British occupied the town of Castine and most of eastern Maine for the rest of the war. The Treaty of Ghent returned this territory to the United States." and for the British force in the south "In early 1815 the British gave up on New Orleans but moved to attack Mobile for a second time. In one of the last military actions of the war, 1,000 British troops won the Battle of Fort Bowyer on February 12, 1815. When news of peace arrived the next day, they abandoned Fort Bowyer and sailed home." Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For the meantime, to make this accurate, I have changed it to "Some British invasions of US repulsed, others left after peace declared". If anyone can think of a better way of putting it, please feel free to modify. I do think its a good idea to have this summary information in there... bit more meaningful than just having something about the treaty. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by the language used at the time DL. In the case of the invasion of Baltimore, reading the source document would lead one to believe that the British fought a minor battle got to the fortifications and decided they needed to get back to the ship. The invading fleet had been stopped cold. The minor battle was about 500 dead on either side. The British were down to about 5500 effectives with their commanding officer already KIA. The force then realised they were outmanned 4 to 1 and promptly marched back and left. That is a repulse. In the battle of New Orlean's 20% were hors de combat, and quickly got back in their ship. According to the article that I read on it the commander after spending months in Cuba thought he'd better go do something and overran an minor fort, for 1 day. That won't wash. You can't blame the commanders for not saying Hey we got our rears handed to us (or were about to have the same happen to them).Tirronan (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Canadian perspective

Was there a Canadian perspective in 1812? No one articulated them in 1812. I think the perspective came after the war as British Imperialists (eg John Strachan) interpreted what happened in terms of integration into the elitist British empire rather than the republican/democratic USA. Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have also objected to the repeated attempts to insert the POV statement "US invasions of Canada repulsed", while insisting that the British only withdrew from some US territory when peace was concluded. The Americans held Amherstburg and Sandwich and the Detroit River frontier from late September 1813 to the end of the war, and indeed refused to withdraw until the British relinquished Mackinac Island and Prairie du Chien. HLGallon (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I only said that it was incorrect that British Invasions were repulsed, and leaving this in the article was a POV issue. I didn't say the US invasions were all repulsed, of course, they were not. However there is a difference - the British invasion forces were still in campaign in the US and moving to take more territory, and still mobile because of the British fleet. The US forces, as far as I am aware, were staying put and not actively on campaign. I don't think there is a place to mention this in the article, but it is something I think that is of interestDeathlibrarian (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

One thing historians seem to like to ignore is the fact that the British (with their native allies) controlled part of Michigan and Illinois and all of Wisconsin from 1814-1815. I guess this doesn't fit either perspective of the war: Canadians prefer to emphasize the contributions of the Canadian militia, while Americans don't like to admit that the British controlled a big chunk of the U.S. Rwenonah (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the British control of the Northwest territory (Michigan-Wisconsin & adjacent areas) and their close alliance with the Indians there was a major American grievance. It was resolved with the death of Tecumseh (1813) and the collapse of his coalition. The British during the war did NOT repel the 1813 invasion of western Ontario. Rjensen (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(Insert) Actually, according to the Concise Historical Atlas of Canada the British Army had de facto control of Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin from 1814 - 1815'. After the much-emphasized Battle of the Thames. Clearly, the death of Tecumseh did not resolve the issue, as the British retained control of the disputed area. Rwenonah (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So if the British had de facto control of Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin as well as upper Missouri, Eastern Maine, part of New York, Mackinack Island, Prairie du Chien, Fort Bowyer and surrounding area in Alabama and (I think) they were in Georgia near Point Peter....they controlled *a lot* of the US at the end of the war...seemingly a lot more than what people would seem to want to acknowledge???? (queue dramatic music). Considering they had sea power, had blockades in place, and an army that generally won when fighting in balanced conditions, I guess it's not suprising. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Although Detroit was recaptured by the Americans in September 1813, continued British occupation of the fort on Mackinac Island, which they had captured in 1812, enabled them to control most of Michigan. The territory was finally returned to American authority under the terms of the Treaty of Ghent at the end of 1814."

http://www.city-data.com/states/Michigan-History.html

"If the eventual peace treaty between the US and England was to be based on considerations of present occupation, the US was in danger of losing the whole region of the upper Missisipi" (Wisconsin and the War of 1812, Reginald Horsman, The Wisconsin Magazine of History , Vol. 46, No. 1 (Autumn, 1962), p 13)

"At the end of the war the British controlled Northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Eastern Maine, and points along the New York border" - Gillum Ferguson http://www.press.uillinois.edu/wordpress/?p=9049 Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the war, British and Indians controlled upper Missouri, Eastern Maine, part of New York, Mackinack Island, Prairie du Chien, Fort Bowyer and surrounding area in Alabama and (I think) they were in Georgia near Point Peter(?). I agree, with Rwenonah - I think how much US territory the Brits had at the end of the war is generally, understated, including the wikipedia page Origins of the War of 1812 which says only "At the end of the war, the British held parts of Maine and some outposts in the sparsely populated West"Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Immigration from the U.S. was discouraged, and favour was shown to the Anglican church as opposed to the more Americanized Methodist church."[Landon 1941, p. 123[6]] The source does not support this statement. The first part is true but the administration had always favored the Anglican church. TFD (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

After Tecumseh's death the Indians raids largely stopped and they could not get British war supplies. That was the grievance that got resolved. In line with the Treaty of Ghent the British pulled out their soldiers in the unsettled upper Midwest (but that had not been a key issue because very few or no Americans lived there in 1812) Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer your original question, I doubt there was any consciousness of being Canadians - except where the term was applied to French settlers in the original Province of Quebec. It is doubtful that there were any English Canadians over the age of 30 [who were born] in Upper Canada. TFD (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There might well have been many people in Upper Canada over the age of thirty, as the majority of the population was made up of Loyalists who had fled the the U.S. in adulthood. Their descendants would probably have included some people over thirty by 1812. Rwenonah (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant people who were born in the province. Incidentally, most people had not "fled" the U.S., but had come to UC for economic reasons. The math is 1812-1783=29. TFD (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, about 60,000 people fled the U.S. after and during the American Revolutionary War. I'm not sure how many came to Upper Canada, but they were the first to seriously settle the area. They were fleeing in every sense of the word, mainly from post-war anti- Loyalist sentiment.American immigration, probably mostly for economic reasons, came later, although I think recent immigrants made up most of the population in 1812. Rwenonah (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, these were the Loyalists or United Empire Loyalists, and they were terrified the US was coming back to take them over, hence the "legs" for the myth in Canadian popular legend. Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The highest estimate for loyalists arriving in what is now Ontario is about 7,500, most of whom were recent emigrants to the U.S. 500 were slaves, hence the urgency in addressing that problem. 2,000 were Indians. The overwhelming number of people in the province were "late loyalists", part of the American move west, and would have thought of themselves as Americans, as did many of the original loyalists. Few of either type of loyalist aided the British army and their Indian allies in fighting off the Americans, even though technically all adult men were members of militias. Even most of the original loyalists had come to Canada for economic reasons, although of course a small number of them were extremely loyal. TFD (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly interesting. Think you're right. What's interesting about that is that if the Loyalists immigrated for economic reasons, I seriously doubt they would be all that concerned, let alone terrified, about the annexation of Canada. This demonstrates the fact, supported by many historians whom I have cited, that the annexation of Canada was not a popular myth, but a recognition by post-war public consciousness of a simple truth.

One facet of the war that hasn't been looked at is the American popular myth that expansionism was not a major cause of the war( although this idea has its supporters as well). I suspect this has its roots in the constant liking to remain mentally "in the right" in international affairs the American public possessed (and continues to possess). Rwenonah (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Slave Trade could be explained better

Freeing and Recruiting slaves

change

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

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

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

No. The US and Britain both criminalized the International slave trade in 1807, but neither one abolished slavery. Slavery existed in Canada & West Indies until the 1830s. Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the 1807 banned the international slave trade, not slavery. But in the war, didn't the British free American slaves who fought for them, as they had in the Revolution? I think so, in which case this section is roughly right (they were treated as free persons) and precisely wrong (it is attributed to the wrong reasons - the banning of slave trade.) It was part of British policy to encourage slaves to leave their masters and cripple the American economy. Will try to find a cite.

Suggest: "The blockading British fleet in Chesapeake Bay, based at Bermuda, received increasing numbers of enslaved black Americans during 1813 who had fled their masters. As they had during the American Revolution, the British offered freedom to slaves who fought for them."Parkwells (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Slavery was effectively abolished in Britain by the judgement of Lord Mansfield in 1772. This abolition extended to Royal Navy ships (as equivalent to British soil) so that slaves who made their way on board a navy ship were considered to be free. In Upper Canada, the act of 1793 declared that no slaves could be imported and all children of slaves were free, but existing slaves in the colony remained in bondage. I am unclear of the status of slaves who escaped there during the war. Dabbler (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The 1793 act provided that anyone who entered the province would be free.[7] In Nova Scotia, slave owners had to prove ownership, which the courts routinely rejected, so in effect anyone who entered that province was also free. TFD (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The Treaty of Ghent provided for the British to return captured slaves or pay their purchase price. They paid the purchase price after the war. I believe the British recruited about 200 freed slaves into a combat unit. Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

On 2 April 1814, Alexander Cochrane issued a proclamation to all persons wishing to emigrate. Any persons would be received by the British, either at a military outpost or aboard British ships; those seeking sanctuary could enter His Majesty's forces, or go 'as free settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies.'

There were two elements of the Corps of Colonial Marines consisting of former freed slaves. There were about 400 men, organised in 4 comapnies, recruited on the Gulf Coast. In April 1815, these men were paid off, at the British Post on the Apalachicola River. Additionally, there were several hundred others, on the Atlantic Coast, who ended up in Bermuda in 1815.

It is not impossible that others could have enlisted in the Royal Navy, or possibly even the army, as there was no colour bar in the Crown Forces at that time. Keith H99 (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please add Tuscarora and Oneida Nations as Allies of the U.S.

Would someone please add the Tuscarora and Oneida Indian Nations as allies of the U.S.? Also, the "Iroquois" are listed as allies of Great Britain. Actually, the Iroquois was (and still is) a League of Six separate native nations, of which the Tuscarora and Oneida were members. However, during the War of 1812, the the Iroquois became split, and the Tuscarora, Oneida and Seneca nations sided with the U.S. So, while you are making corrections, please delete the Iroquois as allies of Great Britain since half of the League sided with the U.S. The largest 1812 Bicentennial monument project in the U.S. will be unveiled on Dec. 19, 2013, in Lewiston, NY, in honor and thanksgiving to the Tuscaroras for saving dozens of American lives during the British invasion of Western New York. It is aptly named, "Tuscarora Heroes." 72.228.164.102 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Carl Ben's book "Iroquois in the War of 1812" seems to say that they mostly were allied with the British? http://www.amazon.ca/Iroquois-War-1812-Carl-Benn/dp/0802081452 Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most of the Iroquois were allied with the British, but far from all. Again, the League was split. On page 149 of Carl Benn's book, you'll see the Tuscarora Nation (one of the six Iroquois nations) allied with the U.S. Two big Seneca leaders, Red Jacket and Cornplanter, were also on the U.S. side. If one of the editors would please add the Tuscarora and Oneidas as allied with the U.S. on the main page, it would be appreciated.

I would think if you were naming two of six Iroquois tribes by individual names that were pro US, would you add the individual names of the four that were allied with the British? Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

American expansionism: general comments

It has been a while since I read this article and I think this section in particular deserves some comments. It has become so long and full of quotes from different historians that is probably more confusing than informative for most readers. It is more of a study in the difficulties of historical research than it is of the (potential) causes of the war. It is obvious that a lot of effort has been put into this section, but that does not necessarily mean that it is particularly suited for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. There are currently quotes from historians about opinions of other historians (suitable for a thesis in history, but not for here). Not only does the article mention the time during which a historian held an opinion, but the nationality of the person and even which institution he or she was at when that opinion was presented!

This is a sensitive topic. For Canadians, it is impossible to overlook the fact that an aggressive, military invasion of their (future) country occurred. Suggesting that those early Canadians and their lands were mere pawns in a larger power struggle is easily seen as demeaning. For Americans, declaration of war for territorial gain conflicts with their view as having the moral high ground, even if there were other, more righteous reasons. In its current state the article seems (IMHO) to say that the idea that American expansionism may have been a cause for the war is an outdated view held by Canadians and a few historians. Here are a couple of excerpts from US Department of State, Office of the Historian, which "is responsible, under law, for the preparation and publication of the official documentary history of U.S. foreign policy in the Foreign Relations of the United States series"[8] that say different: "Many who supported the call to arms saw British and Spanish territory in North America as potential prizes to be won by battle or negotiations after a successful war." and "As the Ghent negotiations suggested, the real causes of the war of 1812, were not merely commerce and neutral rights, but also western expansion, relations with American Indians, and territorial control of North America."[9].

While not wanting to minimize the work that has gone into this part of the article, I suggest that the section should be greatly simplified, essentially stating that the role American expansionism had in the declaration of war is still a matter of debate among historians and referencing those views. Silverchemist (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess we were trying to be sensitive to all concerned. There will always be Canadians that will believe that the primary and only real cause was the wish of the US to annex what would be the future Canada. There were no less than 19 years of escalating tension over maritime issues, and a rather weird big brother/little brother aspect to the relationship that further aggravated the situation. I don't see that changing anytime soon. I rather doubt that the US would have had any other way to prosecute the war other than invading the British colony and there were elements in the US that certainly wanted to annex. The crux of the problem remains that there remains a large segment of the former British Commonwealth that will always see this war as brought on by simple American land greed. However, there were things that arose out of the war that both sides learned. The British henceforth always treated the US as a foreign power to be respected. The US learned that the Canadian Colonies were not waiting to be liberated and the US couldn't conquer it. Both sides learned that the other could be a first class pain in the rear when the Navys got involved. I've said it a hundred times, the outcome of the war was far more important than this sad sack war ever was.Tirronan (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all you say, but do you think it would be useful to say that the role of expansionism is still debated and leave it at that rather than go into the nuanced arguments and rebuttals that the article currently contains? I think clarity may have suffered while sensitivity was pursued.Silverchemist (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no longer any historical debate. Certainly some Americans thought that Canada could be annexed, but that does not make it one of the reasons for the invasion, even if it was a potential outcome. Logistically, conquering Upper Canada alone would have made no sense, because it was dependent on the St. Lawrence for imports and exports. TFD (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no longer any debate? I would not have concluded that from reading this article. I think this comment illustrates the problem. The section is so complicated that there is no clarity. The quotes from the website Office of the historian for the Department of State would lead me to believe there is still debate. BTW Lower Canada, with direct access to the Atlantic, was also targeted.Silverchemist (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The State Department source does not say there is a dispute. Can you name any author writing within the last 70 years who see annexation as a cause of the war? TFD (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - "War Hawks were eager to wage war with the British, not only to end Indian depredations in the Midwest but also to seize Canada and perhaps Spanish Florida.[47]Historian Spencer Tucker 2011 Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Walter Nugent, George F. G. Stanley, J.C.A Stagg in some publications and David Heidler all wrote within the last 70 years in support of the idea.Rwenonah (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not know where you are getting your interpretation. Stagg for example, who is quoted extensively in this article, said that the seizure of Canada could be used as a bargaining chip. If the possession of Canada was the objective, how could it be a bargaining chip? In their book, The War of 1812, the Heidlers say that John Randolph claimed Madison wanted to annex Canada, but gives no credence to that view. In their section on the historiography of the war, p. 341 ff., Tucker and others [10] say, "the Canadian thesis has never quite disappeared. It is no longer the mainstream view, but it still has its champions, particularly north of the border." TFD (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting my information (not interpretation) from the books of the historians in question. The Heidlers say "acquiring Canada would satisfy America's expansionist desires"( pg. 4). Stagg says '....it was entirely logical for him[Madison]to conclude by 1812 that the time had come to deprive Britain of Canada." (p. 46) "... had the War 1812 been a successful military venture, the Madison administration would have been reluctant to have returned occupied Canadian territory to the enemy " Tucker says "War Hawks were eager to wage war with the British, not only to end Indian depredations in the Midwest but also to seize Canada and perhaps Spanish Florida. All of this is in the article, so I wonder whether or not you even bothered to read the section you're complaining about.Rwenonah (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was also wondering why The Four Deuces was asking to provide references supporting expansionism that were already evident in the article?Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"While the western "war hawks" urged war in the hope of conquering Canada, the people of Georgia, Tennessee, and the Mississippi Territory entertained similar designs against Florida, a Spanish possession. " from American Military History, Chapter 6 – The War of 1812, Office of the Chief of Military History, United States Army, 1989 and from US Department of State, Office of the Historian "Many who supported the call to arms saw British and Spanish territory in North America as potential prizes to be won by battle or negotiations after a successful war." and "As the Ghent negotiations suggested, the real causes of the war of 1812, were not merely commerce and neutral rights, but also western expansion, relations with American Indians, and territorial control of North America."[11]. As so, back to my original suggestion: I suggest that the section should be greatly simplified, essentially stating that the role American expansionism had in the declaration of war is still a matter of debate among historians and referencing those views and leave it at that rather than go into the nuanced arguments and rebuttals that the article currently contains?.Silverchemist (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is selective reading. No doubt some who supported the war believed that Canada would be acquired, but that does not mean it was the cause nor an objective of the U.S. government. Your reference to the Ghent negotiations is an example. The U.S. did not demand Canada, and their "expansionism" was into the territories which they had recently acquired from France. While it could be that the U.S. secretly desired to annex Canada, that is not a mainstream view. As the Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 clearly states, that view "has never quite disappeared. It is no longer the mainstream view, but it still has its champions, particularly north of the border." TFD (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It may not be the mainstream view, but it clearly is the view of a significant minority, including historians who have written reliable books including their views. Thus, there is no criteria for excluding it from the page in favour of a view held by another group. Your Ghent example is flawed. Since the U.S did not controls Canada, it had no means of enforcing any demand. Had it taken Canada, as Stagg notes, annexation would have been likely. Anyway, that isn't the debate: the debate is about whether it was a cause, and, I reiterate, some historians clearly think so. Perhaps not the majority, but nonetheless a considerable number.Rwenonah (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Rwenonah is misreading the historiography. Which recent historians say that annexation was a cause of the declaration of war (that is BEFORE the war was declared). It's an old view that was discredited by 1940 by scholars, but still gets repeated in Ontario High Schools (I gave a talk on 1812 to Ontario high school teachers a few years back) but not by current scholars.Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Evidently the multiple current scholars I've cited in the article disagree with you. All of these complaints seem to ignore the fact that annexation as a cause is backed up by multiple current scholars. What takes precedence in the article, your opinion that the view is not current, or the multiple recent books published by reliable scholars which say it is? I think the answer is obvious. In fact, even the Chief of Military History for the American (yes, that's right, the American) Army suports this view: American Military History, Chapter 6 – The War of 1812 "Many who supported the call to arms saw British and Spanish territory in North America as potential prizes to be won by battle or negotiations after a successful war." and "As the Ghent negotiations suggested, the real causes of the war of 1812, were not merely commerce and neutral rights, but also western expansion, relations with American Indians, and territorial control of North America." I'd say annexation not being a cause is an American myth, not the other way round. Rwenonah (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the sources do not support what you say, you are misreading them. Your quote from the Chief of Military History for example does not say annexation was a cause, but you misread it to say it does. Also, in order to know the weight of what scholars say, you need an article about the historiography, such as the one I presented above. Of course some people think annexation was the cause, but the view is not mainstream. TFD (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The current historiography says that 1) AFTER the war started the US wanted to capture Canada to use it as a negotiating pawn. 2) The "expansionism" that helped CAUSE the war was American expansion into Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin that was blocked by hostile Indians (led by Tecumseh) supported with weapons by Britain via Canada. Rjensen (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

a)TFD, I am not misreading the sources. BTW, that Chief of Military History source was pointed out as supportive by Silverchemist, not me. Surely your not accusing him of misreading sources to support a discussion that only started after he supposedly misread the sources. That is your opinion. I have been asked many, many times to present reliable sources for this topic, and I have presented many. You have no reasons to exclude them, except your opinion that I am misreading them, which you have presented no evidence for, and your opinion that the view is not mainstream. Note the "opinions". The fact that I have been able it find so many historians in support of it destroys that idea. Also, Rjensen,, this is your opinion of the hisoriography. The multiple historians writing in support of this view, within your questionable parameters for "modern", clearly disagree.Rwenonah (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

on this topic the "modern" historiography is work done in the last 30 years or so. Scholars back in the 1920s did agree with the "annexation" idea but no scholar working in US diplomatic or political history since the 1980s agrees with it. Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I provided the historiography from the Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 and all you have presented are misreadings of modern scholars. The evidence that you are misreading them is that your reading conflicts with that of published historiography. You use for example a source that says some in the U.S. wanted to annex Canada either through conquest or treaty negotiations. No question that is true, but if it were a cause then the U.S. would have brought it up during the peace negotiations. TFD (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My reading conflicts with published historiography? No, it does not! Stop ignoring the multiple supportive sources I provide. For example, Nugent (a scholar on American history and diplomacy) writes that it was, while not the main cause, that it was a cause. Spencer Tucker also says so. Both fit your categories in every way. Both are, for good measure, American. I am not misreading them. Both clearly state that annexation, while no the main cause was a cause. how do you misread that? What criteria do you have for excluding them from the article? None. Rwenonah (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC

Also, the U.S. would not have brought it up at the negotiations, becaus ether held virtually none of the area in question, and all it would have done was stirred up resentment.Rwenonah (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I presented a published historiography and it says, "the Canadian thesis has never quite disappeared. It is no longer the mainstream view, but it still has its champions, particularly north of the border." If you have another source that contradicts that statement, then you need either to provide it or to stop protesting. The U.S. btw could easily have brought annexation up in discussions even if they did not hold it. The U.S. demanded the return of slaves they did not hold, while the British demanded the creation of an Indian state in New York which did not happen. The U.S. in fact agreed to return areas of Upper Canada they held. The U.S. which had not ratified the treaty could have re-opened it after the Battle of New Orleans. Or they could have re-opened the war. Instead they concentrated on the issues which had caused their declaration of war. TFD (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not only one: I have five.

Walter Nugent (relevant text to be found here. His view is that expansion was, while not the sole cause, still a cause.

Spencer Tucker (relevant text can be found here He states in fact, that it was hoped that expansion would compensate for British maritime oppression. I don't think I've heard that before.

Stanley is also supportive. In his book The War of 1812:Land Operations, he states:"...that free trade and sailors' rights and the Indian excitements on the western frontier were but irritants, that the basic motives prompting the Madison administration's declaration of war in June 1812 were to satisfy national honour and to acquire control over Canada—in brief, pride and acquisitiveness"

Then, of course, there is Hacker and Pratt.

Why should your one source take precedence over my five? There is no Wikipedia regulation that states a source about historiography takes precedence over the actual historiography. As for the negotiations, your idea that the U.S. not bringing up Canada proves that was not a cause of the war is flawed. Firstly, it is your opinion, and so is of no use on Wikipedia. Secondly, since Britain controlled more American territory than the U.S. controlled British territory, demanding extra territory, especially extra territory to the extent of Canada, would have been a waste of time. And with the possibiltiy of further large, veteran British armies under the command of the Duke of Wellington, the United States had little reason to think that continuing to fight would bring it more success then it already had. Why, then, make an ostentatious, pretentious demand for a huge amount og unoccupied territory without any concessions to offer in return? Rwenonah (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason my one source takes priority over your five is that it is a factual statement about the WP:WEIGHT assigned to various opinions while your five sources are specific opinions, which may or may not have weight. For example, today there is a wide range of views about the U.S., whether it is the world's leading terrorist state or mankind's only hope. I can find five academics supporting either position, but it does not mean either should be reported as factual views. BTW one of your sources (The Encyclopedia) is the source I presented, and the article you quote was not written by Tucker. We are all in agreement that some Americans desired to annex Canada and some scholars see that as the cause of the war. But we need to assign that opinion the weight that the academic community has. TFD (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2013

No. It's an opinion about the weight that should be assigned to those sources. Thus I see no reason it should be given any more weight than my sources. It is an interesting fact that the source you quote also supports expansion as a cause later in the same book. This is quite illustrative, I think, about the debate within the academic community. Rwenonah (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A statement about the relative acceptance of opinions is a fact. For example, you may be able to find people who expressed their opinion by voting Green in the last election. That does not contradict the factual statement that most people did not vote Green. You have failed to provide any sources explaining the relative acceptance of different opinions, only your original research on the topic. TFD (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What original research? I've provided five sources on the topic. That is not original research. And what changes your source magically from an "opinion" into a "factual statement"? Your source is an opinion about the relative acceptance of opinions. Rwenonah (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is original research when you assign weight to opinions based on your reading of sources. The article on historiography in Tucker's Encyclopedia for example says the view that the annexation of Canada was a cause of the war "is no longer the mainstream view." You fact decided that that statement is false, based on your reading. TFD (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said that statement is false. While it is not the mainstream view, it is clearly the view of a significant minority, thus qualifying its inclusion. This is why your source is of little use in this discussion. Or does it deny that, too?Rwenonah (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That is sophistry. If a statement that says the annexation thesis is not a mainstream view is itself not a mainstream view, then it is a false statement. To use my analogy, if a source says most voters do not support the Green Party, then you cannot counter that statement by providing five voters who support the party. You need a source that explains the degree of acceptance of the annexation thesis. TFD (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? There is no Wikipedia rule which states that. That is entirely your opinion. Also, your flawed examples ar s becoming irritating. For example comparing voters (out of a pool of a hundred million) to published War of 1812 historians who have written on the topic of annexation (out of a pool of maybe thirty) is ridiculous. Five is a significant minority of thirty (1/6).Rwenonah (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia rule" is the policy of neutrality, which " requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Google books returns over 2 million books that mention the War of 1812, while Google scholar shows almost 50,000 articles. You would need a larger sample than 5 sources and a neutral methodology of sample selection to determine which views are mainstream. A reasonable approach when confronted with an immense number of sources is to consult an expert source which has already made this determination. You can google "War of 1812"+"historiography" to make that determination, which is what I did. TFD (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How many of those books/articles are actually about the war? And how many of those are of sufficient standard for Wikipedia? And how many of those mention the causes of the war? By the time you've narrowed things even that tiny, logical amount, the number has shrunk massively. And yet again, your source does not deny that the view is held by a significant minority. Indeed, as your source gives the opposite opinion in a different section, I could question it's reliability.

But this is getting nowhere. I suggest we come to a compromise. What changes would you suggest be made?Rwenonah (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with The Four Deuces in order to satisfy wikipedia guidelines on WEIGHT really need to get a source that shows the historiographical opinions, or otherwise try to work it out...Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC) I might just add, that basically, anyone one I have ever spoken to, who knows about the War of 1812 and isn't American...simply assumes the US invaded to annex it.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

British invasion of the US repulsed.

Needs to be removed from the Infobox. British Invasion wasn't repulsed...British forces in various parts of the US left of their own accord only after the peace treaty was signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

the main invasions were repulsed -- (Detroit, upstate New York, Baltimore, New Orleans), and by war's end the Brits held only very remote and unsettled areas. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the US repulsed British invasions at Baltimore, Detroit, and Platsburgh...but not New Orleans. However, the Brits invaded and controlled most of Michigan. They had Eastern Maine, and part of upper New York, their army near New Orleans was still on campaign had just taken Fort Bowyer. They controlled Illinois and Wisconsin. So I would not say *most* of the British invasions of the US were repulsed. In fact, I would say *most of the British invasion forces were still on US soil* and only left when the treaty was signed.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No only small British remnants were left -- and only a few hundred Americans were affected (these were in Maine). Illinois, Michigan & Wisconsin had not been unsettled by Americans (though they were a few French living there). The main British force at New Orleans was as thoroughly "repulsed" as anyone could wish. the British force at Plattsburg fled like cowards, and the invasion force at Baltimore went home when its commander was killed by the Americans and the fleet failed to silence the fortress. Fort Bowyer was Spanish territory. (The US lost two battles there in 1814-15, with about 4 Americans killed in the first battle and one killed in the second.) Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

'fled like cowards', what like Americans in almost every battle of the war? 'only small British remnants were left', The same British force that was defeated at New Orleans swiftly moved to capture Fort Bowyer then Mobile two weeks later, and then move on New Orleans again from another direction, the only thing that stopped them was news of the peace treaty. In any case had Britain really wanted to ‘invade’ the US, they would have sent far larger army than 10,000 men! The force that captured Washington and attempted to capture Baltimore numbered less than 5,000 men, not a force of conquest for a nation of over 6 million people, by any stretch of the imagination. Even Andrew Jackson said he had expected at least 20,000 men. So In reality the British expeditions in 1814-15 were punitive raiding forces directed at political and economic targets to frighten the US into peace.90.217.169.161 (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"fled like cowards" was the consensus of British and Canadian officers. The big battles at Ft Boyer saw 5 American killed (and many more Brits) but the Brits did win control of the useless location. Indeed I agree the British planned their invasions poorly and put very poor generals in charge (the ones at New Orleans and Baltimore got themselves killed, the one in NY was facing a court martial for cowardice when he died). Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep ‘poorly planned’ invasions which resulted in the capital of a nation of 6 million burnt down by less than 5,000 men, and US territory attacked at will in the final year of the war, alongside a crippling naval blockade. Very poorly planned indeed. Prevost withdrew because he would have gained nothing by continuing, however leaving that aside, the US launched 10 invasions of British territory, with overwhelming superiority and every single one of them was defeated. But I know Americans like to block this part of history out of their minds. 'the big battles at Ft Boyer saw 5 American killed (and many more Brits) but the Brits did win control of the useless location.'. The bombardment of Fort Mcenry that Americans trumpet about resulted in no British casualties, what is your point? It wasn't a useless location, it left the city of Mobile defenseless, which would have left the land approach to New Orleans defenseless as well. If you can't take losing a war then don't start one.90.217.169.161 (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Since when has the US been agreeable to letting Enemy soldiers hold its territory simply because there weren't that many people living there? :-) I agree...mostly all the US invasions of Canada were defeated, but not so the British. Whether the areas the British held were populous or not, they were still US territory that the US Government was unable to take back (and they tried...at Prairie du chien for instance). As for Fled like Cowards...there are accounts of US regulars breaking and fleeing after 20 minutes of sustained fire(2nd river raisin) and surrendering to a smaller sized enemy forces (Battle of Beaver damns). The war of 1812 was not the best example of US soldiering. In fact...probably its worst IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The three main (over 5000 soldiers) British invasions all failed; in two cases (New Orleans and Baltimore) the commander was killed by Americans, the third (Prevost) died while awaiting his court martial in London after senior British officers attacked him for incompetence and even cowardice. The small (under 500 soldiers) British invasions that did succeed were in remote and (almost) unsettled areas (northeastern Maine, upper Great Lakes). The British Navy had a mixed record--it was defeated & lost control of two critical lakes (Erie and Champlain), but did gain control of Lake Ontario, and did very well in blockade work. Rjensen (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the British invasion of the Gulf Coast was not defeated. It suffered a significant defeat at New Orleans but the army was regrouping and preparing for further assaults on Mobile and New Orleans when the news of the peace came through and they withdrew in accordance with its terms. Dabbler (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dabbler.The New Orleans Brit force suffered only 300 dead out of 11,000 plus 1000 wounded. It was reinforced with a siege train after New Orleans. The US apparently was not willing to confront it in the field.. after New Orleans some of the US militia/troops wanted to pursue the Brits, Jackson told them not to. However, some smaller groups of 100 or so did follow the Brits to the disembarkation point…but when the Brits formed up to face them they ran off. The British force then went off and took Fort Bowyer, which they had been earlier not able to take. So despite the fact the fact the Fort had been reinforced since then, and Jackson proclaimed that 10,000 men could not take it…the Brits took it with 1400. So certainly the US could repulse this force from attacking a well defended city, but appeared otherwise powerless to stop an invasion force from roaming about the country smashing shit up....hardly a great position for any country to be in.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As for British Commanders killed (I agree Brock stupidly exposing himself) and Prevost narrowly escaping a court martial, there were plenty of examples of US incompetence. For starters, there were 10 separate invasions, all pushed back. The Battle of Chateauguay saw 1800 Canadians defeat 4000 US troops. Beaver dams saw 600 US troops surrendering to 50 British troops because of 400 Indians. General Hull, gets drunk and surrenders his 2100 troops to 1300 British and Indians at Detroit. Twice attacks fail because US militia refuse to cross the US border.The disaster that was Wilkinson's 8000 strong force being chased around by Morrison's British 800 unit and ends up getting defeated. Brigadier Gen. George McClure burning Newark and letting the civilians die in the snow... the incident being disavowed by the US. Etc. Christ...what a mess!.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Canadian historians want to a) talk about American mistakes and humiliations (like the White House) and ignore British mistakes and b) are unaware that Canada's First Nations were the big losers. Oh well, it's better than the old Canadian militia myth that the Canadians not the Brits won the battles. :) Rjensen (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Another problem is that American historians like to ignore American mistakes and failures (like Detroit) and emphasize unimportant successes (like New Orleans, which happened after the negotiations). They also like to ignore the fact that it was the American Indians, like the Shawnee and Cherokee, who were the big losers. Canadian First Nations like the Iroquois were rewarded for their part in the war with large reservations. There's bias on both sides of the border, Rjensen- something you seem to like to ignore. Rwenonah (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ronald I took a moment and corrected you entry a bit I hope that is ok? I'd have to say that mainstream US historians have been scathing in their reviews of Hull and Dearborn, and hardly less so of Wilkerson. As for New Orleans, Packingham was a general of some renown and he was overruled by his admiral. In that I consider him to be one of the more tragic figures of the whole war. as for the casualties here is what I have for that: 386 killed 1,521 wounded 552 missing Total: 2,459, out of 11,000 engaged. So the numbers being quoted are not correct. There were proposals to continue the fight but so where there proposals for the Russian army to continue fighting after Borodino... I can't support this idea that the invasion wasn't repulsed,I don't know a single reputable military historian that would claim it as anything short of a disaster. In point of fact the last time the idea was advanced by DL, I and others have stated this over and over. It is a long shot at the very best and certainly not anywhere near the mainstream or to my knowledge even a strong minority view. As for really good generals in this war, Brock, Scott, and Jackson, stand out, few others did. One of the main criticisms by the US War College was that there had never been a US Army Infantry College, while US Army Engineers were outstanding. Again another result is that the US Army reformed but no one would call the US Army as being its best. The performance began to increase on a pretty steady pace and as a result all three invasions were pretty soundly trounced. No sustained attempt by either side in a true large scale offense was successful on either side through the war. Most often this was a result of poor logistics, bad planning, and poor leadership. It was prevalent on both sides throughout the war. Again the after effects were pretty substantial, the Mexican/American war would show the results of the reformation of the US Army. It is used as a counterpoint to the Crimean War Logistical disaster in most war colleges to this day. Let me go on to say that there is a large trace of nationalism that lends nothing to this conversation. I am not going to be convinced by bending facts or presenting books that I've read with other interpretations. The article has to be in the centerline of current historiography and that simply isn't going to change... no matter how many time you attempt to bring it up. Facts and mainstream historians do that. If they say hey Great Britain or even Canada won, then that is what this article is going to say, they don't so it isn't. You can argue to the dawn of a new age but it won't wash.Tirronan (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I was, as you pointed out, clearly wrong in saying that New Orleans was unimportant. I was simply pouting out to Rjensen that both Canadian and American historians will be influenced by nationalistic bias, not, as he seems to think, only Canadian ones. I assume you concur with me on that. I certainly agree that the war ended with no victor and that all British invasions were repulsed, shuts so you know.. I also agree that there is a large trace of nationalism in this discussion. Sadly, editors cannot be totally neutral; some amount of bias will exist. I like to think, however, that I get pretty close to neutrality.

On a less cheerful note, you accused me above of bending facts and misrepresenting books. I am unsure precisely where you think I've done this, or why you think I've done this at all. Please elaborate on that.Rwenonah (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Brits (after New Orleans) not only had plans, to continue the fight, but they were part of the way into it when they took Fort Bowyer explicitly as the first step to do so. They also received reinforcements of a siege train, which they didn't have access to at New Orleans. Historians and many in the US seems quite happy to say the British effort stopped with their defeat at New Orleans, but clearly the *facts* are the Brits were continuing the war. If anyone thnks they can prove the Brits didn't take Fort Bowyer, and weren't preparing to move on Mobile....be my guest. The Americans at the time seem to have thought they won the war with their great victory at New Orleans, and the Brits were sent on their way packing a defeated force. No one seemed to have told the Brits that.

As for historians saying Great Britain/Canada won.... *some* do say this...it is in the article already, as it should be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ronald, nothing was implied in the comment, Staggs is famous for the bargaining chip theory, and that is where he stands out from other historians. Personally I don't buy into it at all. Even Madison's cabinet questioned just how he intended to Canada back if their citizens were all for joining the Union... If you remember the movie Full Metal Jacket, "Every Cong has an American in him just waiting to burst forth? That was the idiot thinking that allowed such careless preparations for the Canadian adventures. Anyway Ronald, you have come a very long way as an editor and I am proud of you and your progression over the years. DL argue all you want I don't believe your arguments hold weight, you have brought this up multiple times and you have never gotten an agreement from the rest of us. Bring something new to light and I'd sure be interested, this isn't new and you are wasting people's time with repetition.Tirronan (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I have brought something new to light, if you look at the discussion above. Published supporting literature by multiple reliable modern historians. It took a while though. Rwenonah (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Tirronan, there is no argument. I'm stating the facts of what the British were doing. If you have evidence to support otherwise, please go ahead, otherwise...case closed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be loath to even use the term "British invasion of the US". Certainly, there were campaigns, but invasion seems strong to me. There were no Schlieffeln Plans, with documented proposals as to how the invaded territory would be occupied and annexed, coupled with the provision of sizeable forces to achieve such a goal; they simply are not there. The word does fit in well in support of describing the conflict as a "Second War of Independence". (The only British Invasion I am aware of was 150 years later, with John, Paul, George & Ringo in its vanguard.)

To borrow from the corporate world, the strategy of "muddling through" does seem to prevail. The conflict was a war of attrition, comprising a number of firefights, where it was rare for the combatants to be deployed at Division level. (This is unlike the set-piece battles in Europe.) The outcomes of this conflict were to impact US internal geopolitics and international relations for the next 50 years.

I certainly concur with DL with regard to the following:

Historians and many in the US seems quite happy to say the British effort stopped with their defeat at New Orleans, but clearly the *facts* are the Brits were continuing the war.

That point aside, I would generally concur with the succinct points raised by Tirronan (with my edits in a different colour)

I can't support this idea that the invasion wasn't offensives on American territory weren't repulsed, I don't know a single reputable military historian that would claim it as anything short of a disaster. In point of fact the last time the idea was advanced by DL, I and others have stated this over and over.

[Postwar] the US Army reformed but no one would call the US Army as being its best. The performance began to increase on a pretty steady pace and as a result all three invasions offensives on American territory were pretty soundly trounced.These last three words: the brevity of this would best be debated separately for each geographic area. New Orleans was certainly a beating, but it did not stop the British from further activity in the Gulf Coast. No sustained attempt by either side in a true large scale offense was successful on either side through the war. Most often this was a result of poor logistics, bad planning, and poor leadership. It was prevalent on both sides throughout the war.

Keith H99 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point Keith...about the term "British Invasion of the US". I generally put it in the same league, though not quite as bad in terms of being a loaded term, as "Second War of Independance". Technically they were invasions because the British crossed the Border and went into US territory. But in the military sense, they were counters to the US invasion...if you are reacting to an invasion force you are pushing back, or countering. Look at it from the other side, The UN wasn't seen as invading North Korea in the Korean war, it was countering the North Korean invasion and in so doing, crossed the 8th parrallel. Russia wasn't described as "Invading Germany" at the end of ww2...Germany invaded Russia, and Russia pushed the German forces back across the border and pursued.

In terms of the large scale strikes on US soil, they were certainly defeated, there is no argument there. But it has been said in the past that politically, "Heroics" was actually put ahead of "Territory". If you look at the big picture of the war, Britain was in possession of quite a bit of territory, it had blockaded a number of cities and neutralised the small US fleet, the US economy was in worse condition than the British one, and there were two forces under campaign in the US, the force at Mobile and another one in Georgia. US military, from what I can make out, was not willing or able to engage the British miitary in the field. So while one viewpoint can focus on the three major strikes, or indeed, just focus on New Orleans and come to a conclusion more favourbale to the US, another viewpoint can look at the whole situation and come to a completely different conculusion. Most historians are disinclined to do this.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Tirronan - In support of the British force after New Orleans, not being a repulsed and defeated fighting force:

“Notwithstanding the disastrous failure of the campaign before New Orleans, the British expedition, as it lay off Chandeleur Island February 1, still possessed nearly as much strength as when it appeared there December 11. Reinforced by a thousand fresh soldiers, Lambert determined to attack mobile” - Adams, Henry, “The War of 1812” p 321 Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Names

Weren't there other names used to refer to this war? Seems to come from the American post-event point of view to call it the 'War of 1812'. Would be more academic to call it 'British-American War of 1812' or some more accepted name. But I have heard it referred to as the 'Second War for American Independence'. Any other names? Can these be mentioned in the article? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's called 'Second War for American Independence' by US historians that want to equate it to The American Revolution (and still is, in fact A J Languth's book from 2006 includes it in its subtitle). It has also been called "The Canadian War of 1812" the "Anglo-American War of 1812". It was called a variety of things depending on who was writing and when...British writers called it "The North American War" amongst other things. From looking at primary sources, it looks like it was initially called "The American war of 1812"...which was shortened to "The War if 1812, and by the 1830's it was commonly called "The war of 1812". There are primary sources, written in the war, that refer to it as "The War of 1812" even while the war was on. I think its a good suggestions having other names in here for it, not sure why there aren't, possibly they were and were taken out for some reason. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Second War of Independence" theme appeared during the war itself and is mildly popular in the US today. For example the prestigious "Library of America" just published The War of 1812: Writings from America's Second War of Independence edited by Hickey (2013) Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Really?..wow suprised at someone of Hickey's calibre using that term for it? *rolls eyes* Do you think they use that term n books because they think it will makeit more attention grabbing to American eyes and possibly sell more books?. From a non US point of view, the term "Second War of Independence" it looks really silly, and is the worst example of trying to rename something to claim it as something it wasn't...Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

yes really. No it is not used to sell books. It expresses an interpretation of the meaning of the war--one that was common in 1812 (see Jackson in this article) and is common today. The British were treating the US badly in several ways and American honor was at stake. Numerous scholars have used the "2nd war of independence" as titles of books and chapters. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it common for US academics with an interest in the War of 1812 to call it the "2nd war of Independence" and see that as perfectly reasonable? I assumed it would just be fringe historians or something. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

yes it is common and reasonable as a subtitle. The term "War of 1812" however is always given more prominence. The "2nd war of Independence" has never been a fringe viewpoint among scholars.Rjensen (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, how can the War of 1812 be reasonably referred to as a "War of Independence" when firstly it was the US who invaded British Territory and secondly....the US was already independent??? I think it is quite bizarre. The War of Independence and the War of 1812 are completely different. If anything, it is Canada's War of Independance from the US Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The US felt that they were being bullied by the British at sea, and that Britain was setting up an Indian State that would take control much of the American Midwest (the Lake Michigan region) and block American expansion there. That is Britain was trying to control American foreign policy (re trade with France), and trying to seize a huge amount of American land, and treating the US with no respect or honor. "Honor" was a big theme for Americans and war was the only solution (for the majority that is--there was a lot of opposition to the war in the Northeast which wanted closer relations with Britain). As for Canada, it took over a century for it to become independent. Rjensen (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the effect of the war on the Canadian colonists' psyche. While they did not earn independence from the British, they did not want it at that time. They did gain a certain degree of confidence in facing the very real fear of American annexation in later American threats to take over much of the west thirty years or so later. In a sense the mythic effect of this war was to give Canadians a sense of identity and nationalism especially against Americans which still persists to a degree today. It also generated such myths as the militia fighting back and is why most Canadians still believe that the Americans always intended to annex Canadian territory despite American claims that they had no such intention. Dabbler (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

well that's not quite how I read Canadian history after 1815. I would put John Strachan and the British imperialists front and center, with their opposition to democracy and republicanism, thus leading the the revolts in 1837. Strachan was the man who invented the militia myth for example. There has been a lot of anti-Americanism in British Canada with the fear of American control front and center. You see it in the election of 1911 for example. I have been working through the Canadian textbooks and they do NOT claim that annexation was a serious threat. Nevertheless the Canadian high school teachers in Ontario I talk to seem indeed to believe the myth and pass it along to the kids. Call it an oral tradition. West of Ontario there is much less of this, & probably in Quebec there is less. (The Francophones esp in Quebec seem to distrust the Anglophone Canadians far more than they distrust Americans.) (Atlantic Canada? there it's much more complicated I think.) Actually most Canadians had a very positive notion about life in the US, which generated a strong net migration to the US, from both French and British areas. (There was a counter-movement into Canada in 1970s esp with Vietnam War opponents, who have provided an articulate anti-American factor in recent decades.) Rjensen (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the "First American War of Independence", the US is a colony of Britain, it's unhappy about this, revolts and gets its independence. Clearly, an apt title.

The "Second War of Independence"...the US invades Canada. Canada and Britain are unhappy and repel the invasion. Canada maintains its independence of the US. So even though the US invaded Canada, and Canada repelled the invasion, and Britain had no intention of taking over the US.....US historians commonly call it the "2nd American War of Independence"???????.... .....just speechless......Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As for Canada getting its independence...that's an American concept. Doesn't apply to Commonwealth countries in the same way. We don't celebrate an independence day, because mostly there was no *clean break* and many of us (including Canada) still have the Queen as our head of state. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dabbler - *Everyone* believes the US's purpose was to annex Canada, not just Canadians. Americans are the only ones who try to argue they were just taking Canada and saving it for Britain.....while they were busy, and *of course* intended to hand it back later :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Canadian high school teachers do not teach that annexation was a serious cause. Not that what they say matters on Wikipedia, anyway. American high school teachers teach quite a few myths about the war as well. For example, I think they emphasize the fact that Dolly Madison "managed to save a few paintings from the burning of the White House", when in fact it was some slaves and a random Frenchman. I guess having the President's wife save paintings sounds better than having a group of unpaid, indentured servants and an itinerant foreigner save them. Another example would be that I read through the U.S. Navy's list of curriculum resources once, and 8 out of 12 mentioned the "Star-Spangled Banner". Which, of course, has nothing to do with practical history. Seems like schools just can't be neutral these days. Rwenonah (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol, ironic that slaves were saving Whitehouse paintings from the British...who were actively freeing slaves Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of those so-called freed slaves were sold back into slavery by the British for "Prize" money. Slaves were still being worked to death on British plantations growing coffee and sugar for these freedom loving and genteel British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.41.130 (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that accusation was made in the press in 1814, but there is no documentary evidence to support this, so as to deter any would-be runaways from escaping, and fleeing to the British. I am seeing quite a few opinions being stated, which are not backed up with supporting source documentation.

I am aware of several slaves, who had escaped to the British in 1815 and who were returned to their masters by Cockburn, so as to not to antagonise the Americans. The war saw the largest emancipation of enslaved African-American slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, with about 4,000 being relocated to Nova Scotia. It was in the interests of the former slave-owners to relocate their former "chattels", as the British had to pay compensation to US slave owners, and this took place during the 1820s.

Whilst there was a strong support for the abolitionist movement within the Royal Navy, this was simply a case of the British using economic warfare to weaken the US, as slavery was still in existence in British colonies in the West Indies.

It was the Creek Indians who got the "40 acres and a mule" treatment in this conflict, as the politicians in London reneged the Indians, and their attempt to get their lands restored, under Article 9 of the Treaty of Ghent.

This is getting off-topic, anyway, and I have a new question to ask. Keith H99 (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

When did the term "Second War of Independence" first come into use. Was it just after the war, or was it in the 1820s? Is James Fenimore Cooper one of the first people to have used the term in his writings? Keith H99 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This sentence...

....in the second para is weird... "Both sides invaded each other's territory, but these invasions were unsuccessful or made temporary by the Treaty of Ghent, which restored all occupied territory to its pre-war owner."

The whole concept of invasions being either *unsuccessful* or *made temporary* seems to an awkward way of expressing the war...and possibly weird spin?. Some invasions or counter strikes were successful, some were unsuccessful. At the end of the war both sides signed the Treaty of Ghent, and all parties returned occupied land to its pre war owner.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Verdict on the Chesapeake campaign

I have come across a book review by Andrew Lambert. He has reviewed the new book from Peter Snow, When Britain Burned the White House: The 1814 Invasion of Washington. Lambert's viewpoint is expressed thus:

'With peace restored in Europe, the British government was anxious to end the American war and focus on reconstruction closer to home. The Royal Navy's tight blockade had already strangled the US economy, while successive invasions of Canada had been defeated. Now it was high time the enemy was made to recognise reality.'

'In this classic operation, the honours were shared equally between the two services... The US Government had been obliged to flee the capital, its army had been dispersed and public credit collapsed. The country was bankrupt.'

'Buoyed by success, the same miniscule force then attempted to repeat the measure at nearby Baltimore. After Ross had been killed in a skirmish, the British wisely withdrew rather than attack a foe five times more numerous and strongly entrenched on high ground. While the War of 1812 may be largely forgotten [in the UK], these battles left a lasting legacy: the blizzard of rockets and mortar shells ... enshrined in the opening lines of the US National Anthem: for the next 80 years America spent most of its defence budget on coast defences, and the US never again tried to conquer Canada.'

Source: BBC History Magazine, November 2013, page 63

Whilst there has been the ongoing debate about "winning" the war overall, I have not seen any discourse with regard to the Chesapeake campaign. There have been historiographical quotes from scholars, and their perspectives. When I read the above, I did think it would be likely to start some debate specifically on this campaign. Keith H99 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Trouble Latimer book on 1812

Hickey in a major new journal article p 439 states: "Although the late Jon Latimer professed to present the British perspective in his award-winning study, 1812: War with America (2007), he failed to do the job; and in any case, his work is so contaminated by plagiarism and fraudulent citations that it is best ignored (and probably ought to be withdrawn from publication)." Hickey cites "see Donald R. Hickey, "What Was the British Perspective?" Journal of the War of 1812 11 (Winter 2009): 7-15, which can be found at: http://journal.thewarof1812.info/archive.asp.htm " . Hickey's article is Hickey, Donald R (Sept. 2013). "1812: The Old History and the New". Reviews in American History 41 (3): 436–44. and is online at Project MUSE. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hickey certainly makes a controversial stance. I cannot access the whole article. Are there people of eminence in the academic community whom are backing Hickey? Conversely, are there any historians that are coming to Latimer's aid, or does nobody care?

You made a notable comment in September, namely:

The "Second War of Independence" theme appeared during the war itself and is mildly popular in the US today. For example the prestigious "Library of America" just published The War of 1812: Writings from America's Second War of Independence edited by Hickey (2013) Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

To express my opinion on a matter, one of the best publications out there has come from the US Navy, their "The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History" which compiles primary source documents from both the UK and the US. I eagerly await their fourth volume. If Hickey's similar project, as you mentioned above, is able to do the same, then it would be a welcome departure from the usual mediocre publications on the War of 1812. A lot of these books just recycle what is out there in previous publications, without referring to source documents, and regurgitating fraudulent facts from unreliable sources such as Arsene Latour and his comments on Fort Bowyer, which are contradicted by Andrew Jackson.

I guess controversial titles do help to sell books. Peter Snow's book is referring to the "Invasion of Washington" when the town was held for a mere 26 hours. I am surprised that Hickey's recent publication refers in its title to the similarly loaded term of "Second War of Independence". I was led to believe that Hickey's book "The Rockets' Red Glare: An

Illustrated History of the War of 1812", published in 2011, recounted to the reader that the term of "Second War of Independence" was an oversimplification. 'Twin myths immediately grew up that it had been a glorious victory and a Second War of Independence; myths that suited the political establishment and the aspirations of former officers and generals to seeking to forge political careers.'

Hickey is probably the most prominent scholar on the war and he is MAD at Latimer for misusing Hickey's hard work. Scholars will probably agree with Hickey unless some one manages to come to Latimer's defense (and no one has to my knowledge.) Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The War of 1812 is an overlooked conflict. As such, it would probably explain why there are books out there which are rehashes of other works, which are themselves full of plagiarisms and unverified assertions: not enough people are reading, and identifying poorly written tomes. If Hickey's actions are a shot across the bow of lazy authors and careless publishers, and encourage others to raise the bar, then all well and good. Keith H99 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)