Talk:War of 1812/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Overview assistance

The overview section starts off a little weakly with "The war started badly for the Americans as their attempts to invade Canada were repeatedly repulsed..." As someone with little knowledge of the war, I was hoping for more background, like *why* the Americans were invading, what built up to those events, and so on. Can anybody shed some light on this and add it to the article? Thanks. Maruchan 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You could consult the causes of the war section below it or the Origins of the War of 1812 article linked in the same section. The causes were pretty convoluted to try to do much justice in the overview. You have things like impressment building up intense outrage, then the impressment being ended but having the war break out before word of the change in policy could be recieved. And that just addresses impressment. I don't know if the causes could be put in the overview without either taking over or constantly being attacked as too simplistic.Zebulin 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am more in favour of the initial position that causes not be enumerated in the overview, but since they appear to be, I felt I had to add "desire for territorial expansion of the Republic" to those listed. I believe all are correct. The decision-makers here had a sort of cocktail of interests, and ultimately decided to invade, though certainly there was no unity among the American leadership (particularly in New England!) on the actual cause of war. While I recognize that of course not all of the American leadership sought territorial expansion, one interest group did and they lobbied fairly hard. Dmhaglund 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can something be done to stop the vandalism to this article? 'Decisive British victory' keeps being deleted by vandals from the section entitled 'Result'. This vandalism appears to be exclusively conducted by American contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The vandal is on the other end of the "undo" button on this one, I'm afraid. If you read the discussion on this talk page (here), you will note that the consensus (word to describe the way editorial decisions are made in Wikipedia) is "Status quo ante bellum." That means no one won; no one lost. This was the judgement of the signatories of the treaty and editors (both Canadian and American) of this encyclopedia respect it. That is why you your attempt to change the result will continually be reverted. Sunray 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid 'Status quo ante bellum' does NOT mean that no one won the war. Many wars end when an invading army is defeated and the original borders are restored. see for example the 'Falklands war' which also ended with 'Status quo ante bellum' which was a decisive defeat for Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Argentina made territorial claims on the Falkland islands. The US was not making territorial claims on the british empire. Are you saying that if a country invades another country/empire and doesn't get territorial concessions at the end of the war then it automatically lost the war? I don't remember that the Uk gained any territory from Russia in the Crimean war and yet nobody seriously suggests that the Uk therefore lost the war. Just because the Uk invaded Russia does not mean it was seeking to annex Russian territory. Just because the US invaded the british empire in the war of 1812 does not mean it was seeking British territory.Zebulin 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you cut and paste that instead of addressing my point? 'Status quo ante bellum does NOT mean that 'no one won' as was stated earlier. Furthermore, countless references have been cited to show that the aim of the American aggression was territorial expansion. The claim that the cause of the war was to 'stop impressment' is laughable. This is taught to American schoolboys to try and salvage some dignity from the debacle. The British army took up residence in the headquarters of the United Stated Marine Corps in Washington D.C. after they fled, then systematically destroyed symbols of the American nation(like the White House and other public buildings)until the Americans agreed to respect international borders. This agreement is the essence of the Treaty of Ghent.

With reference to another contributor, I am a little disturbed that they don't know how to spell 'definitely' I was assuming that I am dealing with adult contributors.

I generally cut and paste my responses to suspected trolling. especially when it seems to be exactly the same complaint as was addressed earlier. One indication that you are merely trolling is your claim that impressment would not have constituted a causi belli. If a country today were to force passenger planes to land, round up foreigners on board and then press them into service to fight in iraq you can bet it would only take a single refusal to end the practice for it to be construed as an act of war.

I should point out that the residence in and destruction in washington you refer to ended long before the treaty of ghent was negotiated. Your contention that vacation of washington was in response to US agreement to the terms of the treaty of ghent fails on that point.

I'm glad to hear that you have found countless references to American territorial claims on Canada in or before 1812. You will do a great service for the article by posting one. So far all such references that I have been made aware of have been individuals who would not have been able to speak for the US in any capacity even had they wanted to and even those meager references have not found their way here to shed light on these discussions. Offering one such reference for discussion would go a long way towards demonstrating that you are not in fact merely abusing the discussion page to troll the editors of this article.

I think it is safe say that insulting the maturity of an editor based on their inattention to spelling constitutes a kind of personal attack and is at the least unlikely to win sympathetic attention to your complaints.Zebulin 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's OK Zebulin, I made a single error in my spelling, it happens. If he wants to believe that validates his position, he is more than welcome to. Ad hominem attacks just make it clear how straw filled his argument is. The British destroyed the White House which apparently constitutes victory. Obviously I was mistaken in the nature of the conflict. I therefore suggest we move the page to International Capture The Flag (1812 Semi Finals).

On a less sarcastic note, the Falkland conflict analogy has been used before and is flawed. If Britain had occupied Buenos Aires (Taking not insignificant losses in the campaigns) and we then signed a peace treaty with the Argentineans that gave back all the land we captured from them and simply kept the Falklands, obviously that would be a victory. Some people have their beaks too deep in the Daily Mail to realise that, sometimes, it's not the rest of the world out to screw us, we are quite capable of screwing ourselves. God save us from the History channel and the evils it creates. Narson 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait...I'm an American editor now? Sexy British accent....use of the word bollocks......nope. Definatly British. Narson 20:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You could be an honourary Canadian if you are real meek and mild (but carry a big hockey stick). ;-) Sunray 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Erhhh No the British destroying the whitehouse does not make it a victory. The British repelling an ill planned invasion of Canada certainly does. Not quite sure why that is so hard for people to grasp.......Deathlibrarian 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just find a source that says that and we will grasp it  ;-) Sunray 19:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

who won the war?

Who won the war?

Did someone win the british-american war at all or won both?

Result: Treaty of Ghent and status quo ante bellum this means nothing to me.

My question is who won the fucking war that is important NOT that the Treaty of Ghent signed.

Who won? --Lordbecket 14:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Both and neither. Both sides achieved some of their war aims, both suffered unacceptable losses, be it in prestige, manpower etc. The War of 1812 had a lasting effect on relations (Despite provocation, there was never again an out and out war between the two nations again, though there were skirmishes, notably over the New England borders, I believe) even though it is a rather forgotten war today. Narson 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also hope you're not under the illusion that war is a kind of game that always has a victorious side and a losing side.Zebulin 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah agrees. "The Treaty of Ghent" is not an answer to who won the war. As for who won the war, the American Wikipedians will tell you that no one won the war. The British Wikipedians will tell you that they won. I'm an Australian, and as far as I can see, the main issue is that the US tried to invade Canada, and were defeated, the war finishing with the British in Possession of Maine. The British won the war of 1812.Deathlibrarian 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In a previous discussion, above, GABaker made the case that both sides won:

... both sides accomplished most if not all of their war aims. War is not a zero-sum game. Often in war, both sides lose; this was a rare case when both sides won. It's hard to imagine that--it's counter intuitive-- but it happens.

If one reads the volumes of discussion on this talk page's archives about this subject, its hard to avoid this conclusion. If Americans believe that they won and the British and Canadians believe that they won, given that the result was status quo, they are both right! Now, let's put this debate to bed. Sunray 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "both and neither" is a good answer, but it's also true that each side thinks they won. I'm American; I was once discussing the Vietnam War with a Canadian friend and said it was the first war America ever lost. He said, "That's not quite true, you lost the War of 1812". And I said "No, we didn't, we won it!" And indeed, each of us had learned in school that his respective country had won that war. —Angr 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well to simplify.....From my Non US perspective. The US didn't stop impressment, didn't successfully invade Canada but did get land off a whole lot of Indians. I count that as 1 objective out of 3. The Brits defended the US and pushed the US back into their own country. I count that as 1 out of 1. So if you are basing it on achieving objectives, the US did not achieve the majority of theirs, and the Brits acheived all theirs. *Fundamentally, there is no "putting to bed of this". The Assumption that both sides won is an American Assumption, supported by American Wikipedians. Wikipedians from other countries will consistently turn up to this page, and contest. They always have (check the discussions) and they always will, until this page is re written to reflect this. 210.49.164.192 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn it. Will you people stop lumping me in with the colonials? >.< Narson 14:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Narson, Can't believe you are a Brit and you are calling this a stalemate???. In the war of 1812, a small amount of British/Canadian troops defeated the US invasion, kicked US Arse back across the border and then took possession of Maine. Credit where credit is due. Man, If I was British or Canadian I would be arguing like all hell to get this changed to reflect a British Victory. Deathlibrarian 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We won the fighting (IMO) but a war is not just about the fighting...its about achieving your aims, ultimatly this is done in negotiations for cease fire or peace (Or in total annexation of your foe). We gave up /everything/ we had fought to gain in negotiation. We snatched a draw from the jaws of victory. However, this cannot be summed up in an infobox. Believe me, I have no problem with us reclaiming the thirteen rebellious colonies. You realise how much we could sell them for at todays real estate prices? We'd be able to buy half of china! (Let along all its tea) Narson 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"We snatched a draw from the jaws of victory." Only if you count Thames, Plattsburg, Fort McHenry, and New Orleans as British "victories". 65.28.247.16 01:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

way to miss the point. The point was that even though the British won more campaigns and territory on the battlefield than the US, they failed to translate any of that into any concessions at the negotiating table. It was not suggested that the British won every battle or engagement.Zebulin 04:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Duke of Wellington made the point that the UK had won nothing to claim any concessions whatsoever from the US whereby the UK settled for standing Treaty of Ghent. It would seem that both the US and the UK believed that they had no futher claims at that point either. I would further note the the British Navy was at pains to make sure there was no impressment of American shipping during the hundred days. I believe the status of won loss is Status Quo Ante Bellum or draw for the Latin challenged. I am a child of the 70's where we would ask "What if they had a war and nobody came?" in many ways the War of 1812 was that war. The US could have put a up a large well trained well suppilied army and really just couldn't be bothered until the cake walk turned out to be a real fight. The UK could have started a serious blockade but again couldn't be bother until it had to consider the US Navy and the US privateers as a serious threat. Even then both countries were more than willing to call the whole thing off as a stupid waste of time. The worst thing about the war? The Battle of New Orleans. The best thing about the war? Both countries started treating each other as Nations instead of the younger/older siblings type of relationship that preceeded it. Tirronan 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is about as ridiciculous as the discussion in the Vietnam War talk page about a refusal of some to put the word "US" and "defeat" anywhere near one another. To be honest, by these arguments the Falklands War would be a "maintainance of status quo" rather than a British victory. In Wikipedia, if America doesn't win by force, it wins (or draws) on some technicality: anything to avoid the "d" word. I am disgusted by all of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.2.104 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to repeat my request, made in the last section: As this is an encyclopedia (not a blog), we will need citations for the conclusion that one side defeated the other. It is time to put up... Sunray 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you will find one cite saying America won for every one that says the British one and then others that say neither one or both or fail to reach any conclusion what so ever. The current wording is stable and I expect it will remain so as I really can't see any side getting a vast majority of cites. Narson 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I've got better things to do than answer IP addresses trolling. Tirronan 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating case of American Mythos ignoring the facts and omitting some consistently too...this includes all the whitewashed "history books". I am a Canadian and think that the facts far outweigh any posturing. There are a number of reasons why almost zero Americans can accept or better yet investigate and discuss the facts of this war: 1)"Second War of Independence" myth is stronger than their belief Alexander Graham Bell was American. 2)Their national anthem got tied in with this war and how could it be one that they lost. 3)Myth that Vietnam was the first war America lost looms large. 4)Andrew Jackson's legend and myth was tied into the end of the war along with the Battle of New Orleans. Take a look at the following page and I challenge anyone to prove what is said here wrong. http://hometown.aol.com/ninety3rd/myths.html Beyond the records in the Library of Congress and Canadian National Library...there has been a large number of journals and letters of soldiers accounts that paint an even more complete picture, but even the unedited and unfiltered military account of the entire war for all battles clearly show that the combination of the British/Canadian Militia/Natives clearly repulsed and retaliated (not invaded) the American force very soundly by any military definition. So let's turn the question around...what level of historical evidence (not book/quote/link references) would it take to convince the American Wiki's that they actually lost the war and the Treaty may have had some benefits, but they had lost by any typical definition of warfare and that the British/Canada did not really give anything up that they weren't willing to negotiate anyways? I am asking for a specific level of proof besides bringing back the dead. If no Facts can change your mind then I commend your Truthiness/Wikiality and I will proclaim victory now. Otherwise...lets see if we can dig up the evidence before the bicentennial. --Thehighlndr (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, exactly what historical evidence if not books? I seriously doubt we are all going to go out and do some archaeology....If a majority of sources outright said it was a victory for the British, then I am sure it would get changed to that. We have told people to 'put up or shut up' several times, with no joy. However, your lack of an assumption of good faith really does not encourage me to get into this with you. If you wish to believe this is some kind of cabal of Americans out to insult Canada, I for one won't stop you. However, I assure you, even in Britain the war is taught as a draw for the most part these days. It is not uncommon in wars of that period for the end result to be bugger all. Narson (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer is to have a page about the US/Canadian war. You can write it and provide proof then you are all set. I've set down what I could find about victory/defeat in the war of 1812 a couple of sections below, all by verified sourcing. Personally I am an American and I think we did lose that one but... history says otherwise so there it is. If you can find enough reputable sources please advance them otherwise just drop it we have been through this endlessly and why is it that the British and Americans can get along on this article and the Canadian can't... sheesh. Tirronan (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Only the Canadians who run in here jingoistically waving a maple leaf flag in your face have these issues. Don't paint all Canadians with that broad brush.Zebulin (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite right and my appologies, it just gets to me sometimes in 50 years as a citizen of the US I've never once heard anyone wanting to do anything with Canada except enjoy having a peaceful and friendly nation to our north not to mention that any other nation threating Canada would have to deal with a very angry US ready to defend her to the death if need be. Again sorry Zeb. Tirronan (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Look it is a little rich to call other person's national pride about what as far as I know is actual history and not just opinion. Is calling it "Canadian Jingoism" really a fair criticism? I just wanted to understand the what types of references would be considered proof and yes I did wonder if anyone was interested or not. Don't say that there is no such thing as truthiness or national myths...every country has them even Canada. We live in an age where the facts have been twisted, manipulated and suppressed and where if you say something on TV enough times...people believe it. Don't take my or any other Canadians opinions on this the wrong way...wanting to set the record straight on this or any other historical record (or current situation) does not mean we are suggesting that we want anything other than a continuation of the strongest nation partnership since the War of 1812. I will see if I can contact the Historian at Fort Malden as I live very close and see what they have, but I didn't really get an answer to my question. If win/lose is just a matter of talking heads/historian opinions then there is no point in reviewing the facts of the documents and please tell me that you understand that spin at the time does not change the facts of the war...or any war...does it?--Thehighlndr (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia article all we are allowed to do is to state facts to reputable source and in its purest form even without taking any conclusion whatsoever. I worked on, and still do, Battle of Waterloo which has contraversies of its own and the way we addressed it was by just going with the fact with no commentary what so ever. If we have a fact wrong hell change it with a quotation from a serious history or a really good source and know I will support you all the way on it. As to who won/lost remember both sides got most of what they wanted and neither really wanted to engage in a war in the 1st place. This is a war with lots of shades of gray in it and the operations in Canada didn't leave me very impressed with either side's operations to be frank. Personally I feel like the US lost since it was in dire financial straights but reading Castlereigh's instructions and Wellington's assessments makes me very aware that things didn't look very good on the UK side of the war either. I doubt that there will be enough proof to make an assertion that either side outright won when they negoiated a peace of "status quo antibellum". Its a simply admission that neither side believed it could really get an unconditional surrender. My comments to Narson on the section on the Battle of New Orleans also gives my opinion on a battle fought after the Ghent agreement was reached. Please read the section on "Is this worth adding" it won't be included because it either is or would get too close to OR territory but it is the result of my research on the war and might bring you to some of the conclusions I found. Every nation has national myths and the US is no exception. Tirronan (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tirronan, that's the most reasonable response I read on this discussion page and please note I am not running and trying to change any entries and I am trying to reason with and understand Wiki better as a Newbie. I think the most logical and best extension of your response is that we fully flesh out all the facts of the war in as great a detail as people can stand so they can see the the historical events and facts and decide for themselves, but I think for any controversial statements the citations need to be checked against others and see where they have got their info from, but redacting historical facts that make people uncomfortable should not be done. --Thehighlndr (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the things you end up learning when you really study history is that a lot of one's most cherished beliefs will go down the drain. At Waterloo I ended up being shocked that no less than 45,000 Prussian troops were on the field fighting when the defeat came and 2 of the 3 breaches in the French lines were due to Prussian not British victories. In WW2 US troops wouldn't take Japanese prisoners and had to be bribed to keep a few alive. So much for the "Good War". Take some time and read a few histories on the 1812 Canadian operations, pleasingly most of the authors are pretty brutal on both sides of the conflict and I have to force myself to read them as I have never seen so much half-assed sorry leadership and logistics on either side. Every victory on either side was shortly followed by an outright stupid defeat. About the only thing that went right on either side was the British Blockade which did in fact block almost half the ports of the US... leaving the other half to operate without so much as a armed sloop to hinder day to day operations. This is 100% my opinion but this war was the unwilling being led by the unable and crowned by incompetence. Removal of anything that is correct and verified is just wrong and I will oppose its removal. In this you have my support. Tirronan (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

American War of 1812

See previous Talk:War of 1812/Archive_1#Name of the war and Talk:War of 1812/Archive 4#Title

If this page was moved to American War of 1812 the the ugly first sentence could be cleaned up from

The War of 1812 (known as the American War of 1812 in Britain to distinguish it from the war with Napoleon I of France that occurred in the same year)...'

to

The American War of 1812 was fought between the United States of America and the United Kingdom and its colonies.

It would also allow for the removal of "This article is about the U.S. – U.K. war. ....". Anyone object to moving the page to "American War of 1812" and if so why? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would, on the simple basis that the war is commonly known as the War of 1812. That is its common name in English and hence why it is the name of the article (To be honest, I've never heard it referred to as the American War of 1812, it might be an obsolete term no longer taught in British schools, certainly the other was called 'Napoleon's Invasion Of Russia' and is treated as part of the Napoleonic Wars) Narson 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed -- that awkward phrase was added without comment or supporting evidence by an anon IP [1] on March 25. Much of the discussion in the archives about this point seems to question whether anyone currently uses the name "American War of 1812" for the war. My choice would be to leave the article at the current title, which unless additional evidence is provided is clearly the predominant and primary use. And also remove the awkward and uncited phrase claiming that it is known as the "American War of 1812" -- or perhaps if a source can be found, move the description into a footnote. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar needing cleanup

These two sentences need cleanup:

1. 'The main cause of this however was down to the fact that the US Frigates heralded more guns and the picked crews recruited from the large group of unemployed US sailors than a regular British Fifth Rate Frigates with their crews rounded out by impressment and landsman making the match up uneven.[12]'

Problems:

-The Frigates didn't 'herald' more guns. They had more firepower. Ships don't make proclamations. -'match up' should be 'match-up' -'more' does not flow to 'than' very well

2. When two ships of almost equal strength did meet (USS Chesapeake and HMS Shannon) resulted in the HMS Shannon's victory (note that the captain of the Shannon practiced a relentless gun drill).

Problem:

-missing 'it' between 'did meet' and 'resulted' if the sentence stays as-is

Feel free to make the changes using the edit function. The joy of wikipedia is that if you see these problems, you can fix it yourself, especially if its so uncontroversial a change :) Narson 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No References

This article has no references. A list of books about the War of 1812 is irrelevant. What is needed is the list of books which were used to write this article. BradMajors 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Or citation

Let me be really clear here, looking at the history of this article there has been non stop editing and to date most of the inline citation was put in by yours truely and I have to go all the way back to August for that. If you put it down and you can't cite it IT IS OPINION. Just where did you all think you got the right to edit the heck out of an article without citation?????? Now how about we do what we are supposed to do and stop ignoring it to edit to a POV! Pop a book (there are about 90 of them in the thing called a library for free) and cite to source. I'm putting this on my watch list and from this point on uncited unsourced additions get reverted for exactly that reason. Sorry to be an ass about this but enough is enough this is supposed to be verifiable not the opinion express. Tirronan 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the facts of the guns on the U.S. frigates and the number of RN ships in U.S. waters don't need a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  stamp. Rather, they should be {{citation}}: Empty citation (help). From what I've read and researched, the numbers feel about right. GABaker 03:31 UTC 15 November 2007.

Indeed there may in fact be different numbers by different sources and if there are such this is exactly where we should cite the source and work it out. Authors and historians are wrong sometimes (don't get me started on Waterloo) and there can and should be a good discussion of how and why we come up with the numbers. The numbers listed are not cited and the British Admiralty thought it only had 85 ships in North American waters. I am less certain about the number of US Ships in commision at that time and I am working on it. If you have a good source by all means... put it in. God knows, I can make an error as big as anyone else and more of an ass out of myself doing it than half the editors here. However let me be clear, WP:Cite makes it pretty clear where and when citation is called for. I get more irritated than most with {{Fact}} bombers that don't contribute anything else to an article but if you state it you better be able to prove it. Tirronan 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I've applied to get semi protect status for awhile given the level of vandals we seem to attract. Tirronan 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC) semi-protection Constant unending IP address vandalism, trying to improved the article and its tough considering there will be 5 vandals a day on it. Tirronan 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Euphemism

Amusing to see the result left simply as a reference to the Treaty of Ghent/status quo ante bellum. To my knowledge this is the only article of its kind that has a problem naming the victor in a war which was so clearly one sided. Overly sensitive yanks? 132.185.240.121 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see one of the other sections about this. While I happen to agree that it was British victory in the war itself, we did lose it all at the table. I am, however, secure enough in the ability of Britain's honour to stand up to people having to read about the war to come to that conclusion ;) Narson (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That one has been beaten to death in the archives. I'm an American and I think we lost, though what we lost is like grabbing air, in that respect this is one of the weirder wars. However any attempt to change it will have the trolls ranting again so it stays as is. Tirronan (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

New Orleans

I thought I'd bring this here before I deleted the word but, it states the Americans decisively beat the British at New Orleans, but, history books I read indicate British reinforcements were coming up and they could have pressed the siege again but instead chose to withdraw after the defeat and went on to take a supposedly untakeable fort further east....it seems like a victory but not one that was wholly decisive. What is the general view? Is the word justified in remaining? Narson 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That the battle came after the peace makes it a moot point, there are other words I would use but its unencyclopedic, stupidity, mass slaugter, idoitic way to use excellent troops, comes to mind, but decisive, no. The argument in favor would be that the amount of casualities and the fact that 3 Brit generals died there. However in my view to be decisive it would have had to effect the course of the war and as the war was over and the treaty signed (if not ratified) leaves me with a defeat period. Tirronan 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvements

Causes of the war:

• This line here bothers me, and one of the few lines that do. While it was certainly a faction within the Congress certainly wanted to take over Canada, the overall war aim with taking the Canadian Colonies was seen as a way to get to the United Kingdom to respect the United States Maritime and Territorial rights (at least as the US Congress saw them). It was far more complex than "we want Canada". As I read it, it would seem that the majority saw it as a bargining chip rather than territorial aquisition. At this time the US had recently doubled in size and most of the territory wasn't even close to being settled (Native American's occupation of the land was of course a problem to be dealt with but that is another story).

Ending the war:

• One of the things that makes me consider this a (Native born US citizen here btw) US loss is not stated clearly enough to me. The US collected most of its revenue via tarrifs on trade and thus the UK blockade had the US in dire financial straights, Gallitan reporting that the country would be bankrupt with another year of war, this along with New England's opposition that drove the US to seek peace.
• This was one war that the UK never wanted in the begining and had less reason the longer it went on. Lord Wellington, when asked, pointed out in his normally brutal fashion that as the US was mostly back country the UK was no more able to actually defeat the US than in the American Revolution. In this case I mean to say that actually being able to occupy and force surrender rather than who won/lost the war. It was therefore seen as a war that wasn't going to come to a successful conclusion in any reasonable time. Given that the UK's primary interests were at Europe and its successful colonies this was an expensive side show with little upside.

Factors that kept the peace:

• Another thing that seems to be overlooked in this was that the United Kingdom thought that if another war broke out with the United States it was certain that it would lose Canada and that this acted as one of the deterrents to another war breaking out. I actually have a quote from the Admiralty in 1817 to the effect "if we start another war with the American's we must lose Canada". Given the opposition of the Canadain population, I have doubts as to that outcome but it was a factor.
• The US wasn't going to start another war with the UK until it was able to defend its coasts with its own fleet something that was started but never built out to that extent and wouldn't really happen in earnest until the 1904 Dreadnought build up on the way to WW1.
• The US never had much interest in anything outside of its mercantile interests and the development of its interior of which the Mexican-American war was a part of said expansion and never really turned its eyes elsewhere until this was well on the way to being complete.
• US detestation of a large standing army mitigated against military adventures something that never really changed until WW2.

On a personal note its a damn shame we ever changed our attitude on that one but such is life. Tirronan 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall what you wished to say in the causes /used/ to be there. I would agree with you, that while the invasion may have overtly seemed to indicate they US wanted the land, I think we do need to do some educating there, in that people have forgotten wars are not always 'Total Wars' and that negotiations were the object of war, bizzare at that is to a modern mind set. We just need to get some cites to that effect if they arn't already there.

On the second, well, believe me, my national pride is more than happy to have Americans say they lost the actual war, a view I fully agree with. Do we not already make mention of why the British were somewhat 'distracted' or 'disinterested'? If not then yes, fully agree.

On your last section the one think I would mention is that the change you mention is not /wholly/ in WW2, the traditional US mindset started to shift certainly in WW1 (with the establishment of the intelligence agencies along the lines of the British MI system). The problem would be finding cites to link the war of 1812 as reinforcing the US's insular and anti-big army view, and whether that differed from the rest of the world (The British, for example, did not maintain a large army, and still don't) Narson 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The current US mindset of "Total War" didn't really get going until the Civil War, the US attitude being "we hate wars, don't want to get in them, and if you force us to go to war, we are going to excel at it and are we ever going to make you regret it". It is as true today as ever btw. The mindset then was framed by squadrons of UK ships stopping US shipping in US waters for search and capture of ships, goods, and seamen. The taking of ships on both sides of the Napoleonic war was seen as political pirating here at that time. All the US wanted was unrestricted trade and respect for its ships and territorial waters both of which it got even if by silent agreement. It should be noted in the article that the UK fleet was at some pains to respect US shipping during the hundred days. I do have a citable source as to Hamilton trying to drum up a large US Army and the utter distrust of both him and the instrument. The US Staff college noted that US Artillery and US Engineers both performed well but that the performance of the US Infantry branch was deplorable, noting that both the former had institutions that supported the training of the professions and the notable lack of the same for the main branch of the Army. The US distrusted a large army and didn't give it much support except in the breach and the performance showed. Again this is something that can be cited. The lack of British interest came from a number of reasons, one being that the Admiralty thought it had enough warships in North American waters to handle a 14 ship small US Navy of dubious quality (US Navy performance in the revolutionary war was abysmal). The US didn't oblige and played guerilla war at sea. Compounding the issue was that there were over 1,000 miles of coastline that would have to be patrolled. All that is fine if you don't have to watch every French port. Another reason is US support in grain and foodstuffs in support of the UK's war aims. The 3rd is, looking at the history, any serious attempt by the US in defense of its soil succeeded. There just wasn't much to be gained in this war for the UK and there never was. The US had even less, it was at war with its largest trading partner. The US didn't maintain a large permanent Army till after WW2, after WW1 the Army was again downsized so quickly that tanks had to be reinvented from scratch and it has to be said so did our aircraft to a large extent in the run up to WW2. Tirronan 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets see some suggested revisions of the offending portions of the article. I think everything you've said here has already been in those sections at one point or another but was reverted for lack of obvious sourcing.Zebulin 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I'll start in a few hours when I have my source books in front of me. On the subject of citation we really do need more but I seem to be the only one doing it. Tirronan (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Factors that kept the peace: From Ian V. Toll, Six Frigates, pages 458,459: The US Army had done poorly, on the whole, in several attempts to invade Canada, and the Canadians had shown that they would fight bravely to defend their country. But the British did not doubt that the thinly populated territory would be vlunerable in a third war. "we cannot keep Canada if the Americans declare war against us again" Admiral Sir David Milne to a correspondent in 1817.

• What drove the peace:

Lord Wellington Ambassador to France November 3rd, 1814, being offered command to North America to Lord Caslereagh on the preceedings at Ghent in a letter dated November 9th:

I confess that I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of terriroty from America... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territroy on the point of attack. you can not on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territoy exceptin in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this resoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.

It was at this point the negoiators at Ghent were informed to drop Uti possidetis and accept peace as status quo ante bellum Ian V. Toll pg 441.

A view on the British side of the war at this time found the public getting war weary and greeted the news of the continuation of war taxs with, according to the Morning Chronicle, a sense of horror and indignation. Ian V. Toll, pg 439.

Headlines from the Naval Chronicle:

• The war with America Britain cannot win
• On the remarkable success of the young American Navy
• America, the need for peace is appartent
• Desertion to the enemy a growing problem
• The poverty of British Naval Leadership
• Why is America so powerful at sea? (Toll again pg 438)

Shipping insurance had gone up 300% since the start of the war. (pg 439) The annual cost of the war was 10 million pounds a year (pg 428)

In bottling up the US Navy Frigates the harbors of the southern US were wide open for privateers who had a hayday. (pg 426)

If you think that sounds grim try this on the American side: The cost of a decent bottle of wine $25 (would have bought a pretty good horse) The American Merchant Marine had all but disappeared The US Tresury was exhausted Rhode Island was facing food shortages New England was close to open revolt (pg 429)

Note at this time the Congress of Vienna was in full swing with Austria, Prussia, and Russia, dueling over who controlled what with the UK siding mostly with Austria, looking for territorial aqquistions in North America looked horrible in that light. See the Hundred Days that I and a few others are rewriting for referrencing on that fiasco.

Your thoughts and opinions Gentlemen, I will be adding more on other points that I have made here. Tirronan (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent finds! So the most important change you are seeking is an elaboration on the impact and attitudes towards the war that led to the treaty of ghent?Zebulin (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There are just as many finds one the causes, I guess where I am heading with this is to expand the article to give the reader a more complete view of what was happening in a complex war where both sides were after different aims for completely logical reasons. Its why you have the long arguments about win/loss the more you try to pin it down the more it eludes you why neither side really wanted a war and why both went to war. For instance, war hawks beside, the US went to this war in absolute dread but you don't see that here. The more we can get into the article that reflect this the better service we do for our readers. Tirronan (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Had the US won the war & won territory in Canada, there is no precedent that it would cede back territory it had won. The later Monroe Doctrine against colonization of Americas, Manifest Destiny, and US wars with Mexico also indicate the US was inclined to have kept whatever territory it won. I think it is reasonable to think that the BNA colony then called "Canada" (much smaller than present day Canada) was at least "in play" --JimWae (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You mention the US war with Mexico. In the US-Mexican war the US totally defeated Mexico militarily. It annexed the least populated areas of Mexico and returned the rest of the difficult to police densely populated territories immediately back to the Mexican government. I hardly think that supports the idea that the US was inclined to keep whatever territory it won in 1812, especially since the 1840's were the the dawn of Manifest Destiny sentiment.Zebulin (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets not confuse war aims here, The US entertained no hope of winning against the UK, the only goal was to make the UK respect her as a country, stop impressing her seamen, and allow her to trade. If you can take a colony you can trade it for concessions. The US entered the war against the dominent Naval power of the time and really had no answer for that, even given that the US could build, sail, and fight, ships as well as the UK fleet, the concern had been to pay off the revolutionary war debt and to refrain from military forces as they were seen as the means for a dictator to grab power. There had been great reluctence to fund the 6 Frigates and even more opposition to a standing regular military land force. Militia's on both sides of the border seemed to fight ok when properly led and more so when they were on their own soil. When asked to do much more there was much to be desired. Note also the complete lack of a US Infantry officer college... speaking of fear... Tirronan (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you might be making an opinion here, but I believe this is one of the tone problems. When you combine the debates in congress and comments like a "matter of marching", the US being treated as liberators and there was no doubt that the US choose to do this while the UK was tied up with France and it's Colonially detached forces were small and could not be reinforced easily. If the Canadian Militia and local Canadian colonial people had turned on the UK troops or at least did not support them...the Canadian Territory could have been taken and likely held. The Mexico/Spain territory is a good comparison to use. I don't believe there was anything in any of the official US government records that indicated they were only planning to hold the Canadian Colonies Hostage for some reason. Also critical is essentially all of the New England states refused to support the action which greatly weakened the US troops.--Thehighlndr (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I am looking for how to expand and improve this article to at least a GA standard. What I am asking for is imput on additional points that I am making and how best to incorporate them into the article. I am asking for your help. Lets make sure we are doing that instead of blogging. The reasons I have put down the referring here is so that we all all evaluate it and use it on the article. Tirronan (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Expand on the Causes section and make sure the expanded material especially the references is also present in the origins of the war of 1812 article. Rename the Treaty of Ghent and Battle of New Orleans section to final hostilities or last battles of the war of 1812 or some such and create a new section to precede it called negotiations to end the war or something like that. Again take care that the sub articles and the new information here are in agreement.Zebulin (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started the rewrite but I can use help as I am a bit played out for the evening and need sleep. Can one of you take a look at the section under Native American issues and rework that? I think between the master article on the origins of the war and what I have left you here you have enough to do that while I sleep. Tirronan (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok folks I have been working this up for awhile and the question needs to be is this going the way you all think it should? Tirronan (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

the article isn't really that long and the new information is all cited so I don't see any problems. Certainly there's more clarity than there was previously.Zebulin (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

The consensus is that this war was a British victory. Just read the discussion pages if you are in any doubt. Alternatively, if you think the result should read 'Status quo ante bellum' please explain why the Battle of New Orleans should not also be described in the same way.

The argument seems to be that there were no American territorial claims on the Canadian colonies (which is not true) so therefore their failed invasion of Canada cannot be described as a defeat. I have news for you, Britain had no territorial claim on New Orleans.

Please do not vandalise this article further by violating Wikipedia policy on Consensus.

Thank you.

'Bias Remover' 9th December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you bothered to actually read and understand the past discussions, you would see that there is absolutely no such consensus to describe the outcome as a British victory. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read ALL the previous discussion which is precisely why I pointed out that the consensus is that it was a British victory.

I notice though that you have not addressed my point. It is OK though I understand why and admire you for it.

Is there anyone else out there with fewer scruples, who is shameless enough to try and justify why one failed invasion is described as a defeat and another isn't? Don't mention the elephant in the living room though, that in the case of the 'War of 1812' the losers happened to be American.

'Bias Remover' 9th December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have actually read "ALL the previous discussions", perhaps you can share with us how you managed to determine that there is any such consensus? (that is, by reference to reliable sources without resorting to original research to produce your own assessment of the events) older ≠ wiser 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, again you want me to respond to your point having twice failed to respond to my original question. It must be a cultural difference but in my country that would be called bad manners.

Answer my question, and I will answer yours.

'Manners Teacher' 9th December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You asserted a "fact" (that there was some consensus on this page) which to any other reasonable person is plainly false. I don't see that you have any other point. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no less than 6 archive pages with arguments to both sides. There are arguments on this page as well. The general consensus is that it was a draw unless you have overwhelming reputable and verifiable sources that can prove otherwise. Now either prove it or drop it, otherwise you are acting like WP:Troll Sorry to be this way but I have run across to many of them to be willing to be drawn into another yap fest about it. Oh and while you are about it get an account they are free and I won't respond to an IP address more than once. Tirronan (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the outcome of the War of 1812 was most like the Korean War myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.244.191 (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Tirronan seems angry, and also seems to have a penchant for telling other people what to do. Sadly though this is not matched by a desire to learn grammar. Tirronan, you mean 'too' not 'to'. Now, if there is anyone out there who has actually completed high school and wants to answer my original question I would be delighted to discuss their response.

'Bias Remover' 13th December 2007

I would answer your original question by stating that the Battle of New Orleans was a moot battle, as it occurred AFTER the Treaty of Ghent. It matter not one whit whether or not the invasion of Canada failed- in the end, it is the treaty that sums up exactly what was gained and what was lost, and therefore the war was a draw. That fact is undeniable, despite what occurred during the War of 1812. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Sadly it has not made it any clearer to me why one failed invasion is described as 'status quo ante bellum' and the other isn't.

'Bias Remover' 20th December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

86.9.138.200 makes only one change to this article ... repeatedly. --Noren (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What you have is a POV warrior on the page and has been at this for months and half the talk page is related to his trolling. Take a look at his contributions and make your own decisions however I promise you that the only thing this fellow is interested in is provoking anyone around and that is the primary payoff for the personality type. I think that we need to work on getting the IP addressed banned for vandalism and be done with it. However responding to this guy in any way, shape, fashion, or form, will just get more of the same. Let him rant as a lone voice and start marking his changes on the talk page when he does it as vandalism and he'll be gone soon enough. Tirronan (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

definitely a POV warrior judging by contributions but that isn't vandalism (strictly speaking). There is obviously some trolling by that IP occurring on this and other discussion pages but the article edits themselves can pass as good faith edits as far as I can see.Zebulin (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, still responding to this guy is counterproductive at best. Reverting the POV edits is easy enough but I would prefer spending my time making the article better. Tirronan (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL @ banning contributors IP addresses. I am thinking of printing this talk page off and using it as source material for a psychology thesis.

'Bias Remover' 20th December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you invest some energy in finding a source that makes the case that the British empire won the war of 1812 rather than edit warring here and on the battle of New Orleans page?Zebulin (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this worth adding?

While I have my own opinion of who won/lost the war of 1812 perhaps this might go some way to end the troll bits on the victory/defeat issue. Your thoughts please.

Who won the War of 1812?

This subject has suffered arguments from every side since the war ended. One of the issues with this war is that both sides saw this as a limited war with limited aims. The United Kingdom never envisioned the recapture of the United States of America. The United States never thought it could actually defeat the United Kingdom. The evaluation of what each side hoped to accomplish and what it actually did accomplish is the only measure of what is victory. As the Treaty of Ghent only reverted, any gains that either side made during the war and addressed not a single issue substantially there is nothing to be learned by referring to this treaty, therefore only the actions of the parties afterwards can lead to any understanding of what was won or lost by the War of 1812.

United States of America’s war goals

The United States of America’s main goals were to force the United Kingdom to:

• Respect its territorial waters / successful
• Cease impressments of its citizens at sea / successful
• To have its foreign trade unrestricted / successful
• To be respected as a national power in its own right / successful
• Capture of Canada to force the UK to quick submission / failed

United Kingdom’s war goals

The United Kingdom main goals were to force the United States of America to:

• To give up the war against the United Kingdom / successful
• To repress the expanding commercial competition of the United States / successful
• To retain the Canadian Colonies / successful
• To repress the United States westward expansion / failed

The goals of both nations were fairly well met even if they were settled by later negotiation or by silent agreement.

• The US never again threatened Canada with invasion.
• The US never again declared war against the UK.
• The US merchant marine now stripped of its “most neutral of neutrals” status never regained the trade it had enjoyed before the War of 1812.
• The US continued to expand at a rapid rate across the western territories and the hoped for Indian buffer state never allowed to exist.
• The UK made sure that the Royal Navy never again impressed men from American ships.
• The UK never again failed to treat the US as a national power in its own right.
• All UK forts in US territory were abandoned.

Regardless of implicit or silent agreement, both sides of the war had achieved their war goals in the main.

Tirronan (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True but most of this can already be surmised by the recent additions to the article. Spelling it out for the reader smacks of OR IMHO. One thing that might help would be if I am able to find a source that neatly summarises the war aims of each side. I don't think our current sources really do this except piecemeal and in such a way that it's not clear how many or how important other war aims might be.Zebulin (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is the reason I brought it up, its edging towards OR territory if not crossing it. Tirronan (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You know during the talks at Ghent the deal over immpresment was never discussed and continued after the war of 1812. So that is another faliure for America.

Really? My understanding was that impressment of American sailors acctually stopped at the start or before the start of the war? Narson (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The histories will stop referring to impressment at the start of the war because the capture of hostile merchantmen is seen as legitimate during the course of the war. All four of the books I have at hand are in agreement that the Royal Navy wouldn't stop or impress US flagged vessels during the 100 days. The more interesting to me is that the US still lost is booming trade because at the end of the war the US was seen as just another touchy national power with a navy it was more than willing to use. The other side of that being since a single voyage could no longer pay for the cost of the ship, capital moved to manufactering, already started with the loss of trade with the UK during the war, and jump started the US economy. Tirronan (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)