Talk:War of 1812/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Lede para and Canada

This section has evolved to discuss modern attitudes to the War rather than constitutional niceties. As a Canadian I can tell you that the Statute of Westminster is totally ignored by the modern Canadian. If asked they would say that Canada began as a nation in 1867 and that this was in part due to the nationalist feelings developed during the War of 1812 and the rebellions of 1837. The First World War is also seen as another important bit of nation building. The Canadian militia is also believed to have been a major part of the British victory (and the militia did participate in the so-called iconic battles named) which is why I would like to see it included in this section. Dabbler (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to sound blunt, but if Canadians don't know their own history that is really not our problem. The 1867 act was created by the British Parliament some 52 years after the war ended. It did not grant Canadians one iota more independence than they had in 1866. Canada automatically entered the First World War in 1914 precisely because it was under British control at that time, a century after the War of 1812 allegedly created nationalist feelings.

I do not deny the participation of Canadian militia but all the militia was ultimately British just like the militia of New York, Pennsylvania, etc. was American.

CJK (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point completely. This part of the lede is discussing how the war is perceived in the modern US, Canada and Britain. Bringing up irrelevant subsequent Canadian/British colonial constitutional evolutions which are irrelevant to the War is well off the topic of the article, especially in the lede. Dabbler (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the edit. I do not see why constitutional law belongs in the article. In any case it is complex. The 1931 Act put into statute the Balfour Declaration of 1926 which said that Canada was "autonomous" and "equal" to the U.K., without stating when that condition had been obtained. Despite the King's declaration of War in 1914, Canada's involvement was voluntary. TFD (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "irrelevant" to point out that Canada, as one result of the war, remained under British colonial status until 1931? That seems to me to be of equal or greater importance than any alleged nationalism that occurred as a result of the war, regardless of how Canadians may perceive it.

CJK (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How can that be a result of the war, when "liberation" of Canada was never a U.S. objective? In any case, you would need a source that says that. And as I pointed out your understanding of Canadian constitutional law is inaccurate. Canada was for example a member of the League of Nations and was formally recognized as independent by both the UK and the U.S. before 1931. TFD (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TFD and Dabbler.Rwenonah (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If Canada was annexed by the U.S. and its provinces were admitted as states in the Union then it would be just as independent as the rest of the United States (no different than Texas or Hawaii today). By contrast, Canada was under the thumb of a British parliament (which it had no representation in) until 1931. The U.S. recognized Canada only after 1926. Would you prefer we use 1926 instead of 1931?

The bigger point I'm trying to get at is that the sort of "nationalism" that developed in Canada was one that, for at least a century, was unwaveringly subservient to the U.K. Even today Canada uses the British monarchy while states like Ireland severed all ties with them. They flew the British flag until 1965! This isn't meant as an attack on Canada, I just can't accept the portrayal of 1812 as some sort of Canadian War of Independence, which seems to be the intention.

CJK (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

For Canadians the perceived alternatives were protection of the the Empire or integration in the U.S. "Nationalists" supported the latter and many defended imperial symbols long after the Empire had ceased to exist. They would not have regarded it as being "under the thumb" or "subservient". TFD (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It was BRITISH Canadians (and recent British immigrants) who proclaimed the British Empire, not the French and not the other ethnics. This came to a crisis in 1917 regarding support for Canada or the Empire, and it ripped the country apart in ways that have never healed. Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Canada had some degree of self-government from 1867 - onward. Had Canada been annexed by the U.S., Americans would not have countenanced the presence of a large Catholic, French-speaking population, or a large one sympathetic to the British (e.g. the Quebecois and the Loyalists) within their broders, let alone voting. Whether they would have been disenfranchised or just expelled is hard to tell, but it certainly wouldn't have been as rosy a transition as you seem to think. Additionally, I see little difference between the amount of self-government a state had at the time, and the amount Canada had as a colony. By your logic, for example, Texas was (and is) under the thumb of a federal government.

And as TFD said, Canadians were loyal to the British Empire. The War of 1812 was not a "Canadian War of Independence", but a "Canadian War to Remain Part of the British Empire". Even the Quebecois, who didn't really care for the british Empire, fought so as not to have American republicanism and anti-Catholicism imposed on them (now, as Rjensen pointed out, Canada is largely divided between the Quebecois and all other ethnicities).

And, lastly, militia were referred to by British officers at the time as Canadian militia, so I see no problem there. And Canadians, insofar as I know, perceive the War of 1812 as an attempt at annexation, not an attempt by Britain to "preserve its control over its Canadian holdings". What they were is regardless; what they are perceived as is the important factor. Rwenonah (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD: The non-French population of Canada were principally either descended from American loyalists or recent immigrants from the U.K. Under those circumstances its hardly surprising that they would advocate strong ties with Britain. However, that doesn't make Canada's colonial status any less of a fact. If Alaska became an independent country instead of state in 1959 nobody would be claiming that they had been less of a colony of the U.S. on the grounds that they personally didn't see themselves as "subservient".

Rwenonah: The total Canadian population was only about 10% of the American population, the French smaller still so I don't see a problem with a "huge" French or loyalist population.

A U.S. state has representatives in the federal government, Canada had no representatives in the British Parliament. The entire American Revolutionary War was fought on the idea that, due to lack of representation, Parliament should not be able to legislate in the colonies. So it seems odd to act as if that is not an important issue.

Yes, they referred to them as "Canadian" militia in reference to the fact they were militia from the provinces of lower or upper Canada. But in the same way the U.S. army also referred to their state militia as "New York" or "Maryland" militia. It didn't mean they were considered separate from the "American" army.

CJK (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A good number of the people of Upper Canada and Niagara in particular were actually recent non-Loyalist American immigrants attracted by generous supply of land grants. The American government believed that they would have a good reception for the invading troops but in fact these recent immigrants were generally more loyal to the Crown. see Laura Secord for example.

Canadians then and still now see the war as being defensive against a threat of American annexation rather than for independence from Britain. Britain was seen as a bulwark against any threat from the local aggressor. Dabbler (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Further, the Canadian militia was just that, not part of the British Army but a local militia raised from the residents who were trained to defend their local area and not to participate in British wars. Lower Canadian militia did not defend Upper Canada and vice versa neither participated in invading the US. Dabbler (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Laura Secord married a loyalist. If there was an American "annexation", logically Canada would become "independent" from Britain. They are not mutually exclusive terms.

U.S. state militia was also not part of the U.S. army and were trained to defend their local area. Canadian militia did in fact invade the U.S.--see Siege of Detroit and Siege of Fort Meigs.

CJK (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen, I should have said Upper Canada, which is where the sense of nation developed. Native Indians and some minority groups did were not affected by this feeling. CJK, Dabbler is correct. The overwhelming number of people in the province, including Laura Secord's family were "late loyalists", or economic migrants. Most of the actual loyalists were economic migrants too.

The Stamp Act which led to the U.S. revolution had been repealed and I cannot think of any laws or taxes that were imposed on the province by the U.K. or provincial laws that were vetoed by London. Some nations today voluntarily remain dependencies - Puerto Rico, Bermuda, Anguilla. It does not mean they have no national feeling.

The argument that Canada could become independent by joining the U.S. is odd. It certainly was not how they would have seen it.

TFD (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Late Loyalists" were still loyalists. At the very least they were probably indifferent to the Revolution and didn't mind British control. Americans thought highly of complete independence given that they rejected reunion with Britain even when offered complete self-governance--see the Carlisle Commission.

The "odd" argument is actually rather straightforward: like the Thirteen Colonies, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland were under the control of the British parliament, in which they had no representation. There wasn't even responsible government until 1848. If Canada was annexed by the U.S. in 1812 those provinces would have been admitted as states into the union. They would have the rights of every other state and would send senators and representatives to the federal government. They would be part of an independent nation just as Texas, Florida, Louisiana, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and every single other U.S. state from territory acquired since 1783.

As I said before, whether or not Canadians desired to be independent is quite irrelevant to whether they were or not. I would not hesitate to call Puerto Rico, Bermuda, and Anguilla colonies as well.

CJK (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

By your reasoning the defenders of the Alamo and the settlers of the Oregon Country "were probably indifferent to the Revolution and didn't mind British [or Spanish] control." In any case the government doubted their loyalty and tried to stop American immigration after the war. What is your point about nationalism anyway? TFD (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Catholics in Quebec were welcome in the USA. The new US eagerly sought to win over French Quebec to the American cause in 1775-77 and offered statehood and equal status. (American invaders were defeated militarily and it did not happen). In the Great Expulsion of 1755–1763, Britain expelled over 10,000 French Catholics ("Acadians") from Nova Scotia. Many of these victims of ethnic cleansing settled in Louisiana, where their descendants still predominate in many counties. Some of the older folks still speak French at home. They have French surnames & Catholic religion to this day and they have never complained about their treatment in the USA. Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And the French language which is so vitally important to Quebecers? Alive and thriving amongst those Catholic populations? Treated officially as an equal or even superior to English in those areas where they moved to? Dabbler (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again I think that the point is being missed. This part of the lede describes how the War was perceived afterwatds by the Americans, Canadians and British. It does not discuss subsequent constitutional changes in the US or UK, such as the Reform Acts or Amendments to the Constitution because they were not a direct outcome. As CJK has so frequently pointed out Canadian independence was not an outcome either, so it need not be discussed here. What is discussed is the British current indifference to the War and American feelings that they had acquitted themselves well in a "Second War of Independence". Well in the same manner, Canadians believe that this was one of the founding events for what eventually at some time became a sovereign country. The mythos of the Canadian militia is an important part.Dabbler (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Only some Canadians--those of British descent, usually in Ontario, think that it was a founding event. The Francophones and ethnics don't support that line of thought. The Assoc of Canadian Studies has done numerous polls on this point. Rjensen (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe New Mexico was bilingual at one time.

And I agree that Canadian views should be represented, what I don't understand is the failure to acknowledge that Canada's initial identity was based on strong loyalty to Britain. The elephant in the room here is that there was simply no reason, other than to continue British control, for what is now "Canada" to be kept separate from the United States at the close of the Revolutionary War. The U.S. asked for all of North America during peace negotiations and the British actually ceded parts of Quebec province in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, so it was hardly unthinkable at the time.

CJK (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

At the time Canada was not a country, and the what would become Canada was a number of separate provinces within the British Empire. Hence there would be no shared feeling about the war from Victoria to St. John's to Baffin Island, but would be within the Province of Upper Canada, which is now Ontario. I do not believe there had been any significant immigration into the province other than from the U.S. and UK.

CJK, the Province of Upper Canada was created after the American Revolution. Whatever reason people had for going there, the feeling that they were members of a distinct society did not develop until after the war. Before that while all were British subjects, they were just Virginians, Irish, Hessians, etc., living in the province.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anyone denying that Canada's initial identity was based on loyalty to Britain. That was, after all, a major factor in the war: the populations of Upper and Lower Canada preferred - and fought - to be British, rather then American. This leads in to your next point - that there was no reason for what is now Canada to become part of the U.S. after the Revoloutionary War. The thing is, there were several reasons, namely that the Loyalists, who were emigrating into Upper Canada, viciously opposed becoming part of the U.S., while the Quebecois feared American anti-Catholicism and anticlericalism. Which, contrary to what Rjensen, has said, was common in the U.S. at the time, including prominent figures such as Thomas Jefferson (and it should be noted that when the Acadians emigrated to Louisiana, it was a French possession, not an American one). With the Quebec Act securing their culture, law and religion within Canada, they had no reason to want to change the status quo. A pertinent example here is that of the Phillippines, which was seized from the Spanish and then maintained as a disenfranchised colony well in to the 20th century (a good bit after Canada's independence). Although there are flaws in the comparison, the large similarities between the situations (area with Catholic majority seized from Old World Empire) make it a useful indicator of what might have happened had the U.S. taken Lower Canada.

An interesting poll can be seen here, in which 79% of Canadians agreed the war was important to Canada's national identity , and 77% agreed that it was an important commemoration. This seems to demonstrate that a clear majority of Canadians thinks the war a fairly important historical event. Although, as Rjensen pointed out, the numbers are lower in Quebec than the rest of Canada.Rwenonah (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The loyalist influx occurred after it was confirmed that "Canada" would stay British. Before that time there was significant pro-Revolution sentiment in Nova Scotia but they were too cut off from the other colonies to make effectual resistance. The U.S. constitution guarantees religious freedom. But even if we accept the idea that French Canada had a reason to stay with Britain, the territory that became Upper Canada was not settled at the time. Before the American Revolution it belonged to the colony of Quebec but so did Michigan and Ohio. There was no particular reason at that time why the part north of the Great Lakes should become "Canadian" and the southern part "American".

I agree that 1812 was crucial to Canada's history, but the reason that it was so crucial was because it kept Canada as a British dependency.

CJK (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The poll was conducted in 2012 and may indicate that Harper's efforts to commemorate the war have been successful in raising its profile outside Ontario. But the "Loyalists", who were a small minority of people in the province and did not form a distinct group, and the habitants were mostly unconcerned about the war. Loyalists included Iroquois, slaves, slaves who had fought for Britain, stranded mercenaries, recent UK emigrants, uneducated woodsman who had chosen the losing side, German pacifists, people who wanted free land, and a handful of dispossessed gentlemen. Tory propaganda transformed them into a cohesive ideological group who proved their loyalty again in 1812. Few Tories btw were loyalists.

CJK, how could that be what makes it crucial when Canada's inclusion in the Empire had never been an issue?

TFD (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be dodging the main point: Non-French Canada existed specifically for the purposes of preserving British rule on parts of North America after the Revolutionary War. 1812 is important to Canada's history because it preserved and perpetuated said rule and ensured the Revolution stayed south, in spite of there being no real compelling reason to avoid integration. As a result, Americans and (non-French) Canadians have developed separate senses of nationhood in spite of the fact that they are virtually indistinguishable to pretty much everybody else.

CJK (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD:Looks like that Tory propaganda was pretty effective on me. Although most of the Loyalists did prove their loyalty again in 1812.

CJK: I'm confused about the point you are trying to make here. Your edits remove multiple Canadian perceptions and reactions to the war (for example about modern celebrations). Also, a point no one has brought up this far is that sources generally refer to Canadian militia and treat the two groups (Canadian and British) as to some degree separate. Additionally, your comparison with state militias is invalid because, as you pointed out, states and colonies were highly different entities, and cannot really be compared. I agree that there was no particular reason that the borders should have been agreed in the way that they were in the Treaty of Paris; however, that is irrelevant to the war of 1812. I believe the borders followed logical geographical divides in most places. Another thing that no one has mentioned so far is that historians (Landon and Akenson are used in the article) state that the war caused certain changes in the government policies - and thus the public mind- in Canada. American-style republicanism and Methodism was discouraged, for example. Also, anti-Americanism became a political force (as evidenced in later rejections of trade treaties. Pierre Berton has said that the United States probably would have absorbed Canada if not for the war of 1812. Indeed, the war could be said to have been the reason for integration (no, annexation) not to happen: no one wants to absorbed by a nation that killed one's grandfather. Thus, 1812 had important consequences in developing a Canadian sense of nationhood, not just preserving British control. Rwenonah (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Canadian militia" makes it sound as if they are somehow separate from the British when they just happen to be the local troops they called upon. I think many people would misinterpret such a wording.

The "relevance" is that your version states that the war is particularly "relevant" in Canada because the U.S. wanted to "annex" it even though the exact same thing could be said about the Revolutionary War, where they also attempted to acquire land that became known as "Canada". The situation of their being a "Canada" that was separate from the U.S. only happened because the British wanted to maintain some consolation in North America after the Revolutionary War, possibly to threaten that new country. (Even if you are right about Quebec, the British could have just as easily thrown them to the wolves if they wanted to.) It was not because of some long-standing boundary or legitimate differences between two peoples. You report the event without context as if its like Hitler rolling into Poland, when in reality the Americans were just trying to finish the job started in 1776.

CJK (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian militia were part of the British Army. True they were "local troops they called upon" but so are regular troops. Officers held commissions from the Crown and reported to the Commander-in-Chief. You keep saying the U.S. planned to annex Canada, but that is not a widely accepted view. The "job started in 1776" was that individual colonies declared independence. It was not like Massachusetts decided to conquer all their neighboring provinces. TFD (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And here I thought "finish the job started in 1776" meant complete the destruction of all those who were not traitors to the Crown and seizure of their remaining lands. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, have you heard of the invasion of Canada (1775)?

What I'm looking for in the lead is an acknowledgment that Canada's founding and future identity was entirely premised on British control.

Something like: At the end of the Revolutionary War Britain had refused to cede its northernmost possessions in North America to the new United States, this area forming modern Canada. British control of this territory was cemented by an influx of loyalists after the war.

CJK (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly propounding some questionable views. You, for example, used the words "British domination over Canada", which implies something against the will of the people. However, Canadians wanted to be (and, in ways, remain) part of the British Empire. Also, "finish the job started in 1776" is rather strange. It could be used to justify practically any war ever fought between two countries that had fought before (e.g. WWI:France just wanted to finish the job started in 1806), totally ignoring the many other reasons wars have for starting. Although "American Revanchism" might make an interesting new subsection in "Causes of the War". And as for "Canada's founding and future identity was entirely premised on British control", there are so many holes in that I can see right throughout it. For a start, Canada was founded by the French. Britain then took control of Canada from the French. This left a significant portion of Canada with an identity based in the French language and cultures, which you keep ignoring. The rest of Canada was then settled by people fleeing the American Revolutionary War. The United States then invaded again in the war of 1812, creating anti-Americanism in the Canadas. I would say that, far from Canada's identity being created based on British control, it was created based on the absence of American control, and that the people who would become Canadians sought to differentiate themselves from their larger, more populous southern neighbour, with British encouragement. Anyway, to put your ideas in the article, you would need a reliable source. Rwenonah (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"British domination over Canada" simply points out the facts of the matter without any comment on what Canadians thought of it. The official name the British established for Canada, and Canadians still maintain, is the Dominion of Canada, i.e. a Dominion of his majesty. According to my dictionary, "Dominion" is a noun that means "rule; control; domination".

The statement the invasions ensured that the Canadas would remain part of the British Empire rather than be annexed by the United States implies that Canada would just be trading one empire for another, when in reality they would have achieved the independence denied to them in 1783.

"Finish the job" is in reference to the fact that in fighting the Revolution American patriots hoped to expel the British entirely from the continent. 1812 could be seen as finishing the job in the sense that it tried to fulfill a specific unfulfilled goal.

The "Canada" referenced prior to 1783 consisted exclusively of French territory. Nova Scotia, for example, was not considered part of Canada. "Canada" as we know it only came about after the Revolutionary War. It was mostly Anglo-dominated or not settled so the arguments that you advance regarding French Canadians do not apply to the majority of the country, which exists exclusively so that Britain could maintain some control in North America after the Revolutionary War. The loyalists who fled to Canada had absolutely no problem with identifying as "American" before Britain lost the Revolution. The only thing they had a problem with was being independent from Britain.

CJK (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

One more point I should make: there was also no particular reason for the British to care about the welfare of the French Canadians. Prior to 1774 they had no problem ruling them without regard to their sensibilities. So why not cede them?

CJK (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

CJK, do you have a source that explains events the way you presented them in relation to the war? Unless you do, it is pointless to continue the conversation. TFD (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you believe needs sourcing?

CJK (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was interested in your view of North American history and wonder if you can recommend a book that describes it the way you do. TFD (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources. For example, the "Canada" entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says:

In 1775 began the American Revolution. Its leaders tried to make the revolt continental, and invaded Canada, hoping the French would join them... The war [of 1812] seemed to provide a renewed opportunity to annex Canada to the American Union... [1]

CJK (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are relying on opinions from 100 years ago. Is that your normal source of 19th century history? TFD (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The term Dominion in the title Dominion of Canada originates from the Bible Psalm 72 vs 8 "And He (God) shall have dominion from sea to sea" and not from any concept of domination by the British. In fact the term was only given to autonomous self governing parts of the Empire (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Ireland), and not used for colonies which had British government officials ruling them. Dabbler (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Domination is defined by my dictionary as "rule or sway, often arbitrary". It heavily implies forcible imposition of rule over an unwilling population, which does not describe British government in Canada (which largely ended, at least in internal matters, in 1867).

Your idea that somehow the United States would have granted Canada independence is strange and contravened by your own earlier statements. As you pointed out, Canada in the 18th century had no national identity and little to differentiate it from the United states. You also convincingly argued about how the borders were arbitrary and there were no legitimate differences between the two peoples. By your own argument (which I still disagree with in some parts), there was no valid reason for the United States to make Canada independent should it have occupied it. Although this wasn't true, nineteenth-century statesmen weren't known for their respect of ethnocultural differences or the "will of the people", and I seriously doubt that the United States would have created an independent nation ruled by people who were loyal to Britain along its northern border. As I have pointed out already, its more likely that the conquered areas would have been disenfranchised and subjected to military government until assimilation had taken effect (which probably wouldn't have taken very long). But this is idle speculation.

Also, you demonstrate an ignorance of Canadian demographics in 1812. Lower Canada had an French-speaking majority, and was larger then Upper Canada both in area and (I believe) population. Thus, my arguments do apply to the majority of the country, no matter which way you look at it. Also, it's arguable that the Canadas existed as a place in which those who wished to remain loyal to Britain but not to leave AMerica (of whom there some numbers) could live.

Rwenonah (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The term Dominion per the article clearly indicates that it referred to the dominion of the British crown. I don't any evidence that "domination" must be always arbitrary. It is enough that arbitrary power exists and can be used, which was the case in Canada up until 1931. Under your argument the Thirteen Colonies were not under British domination simply because their rule was not particularly oppressive.

You misunderstand my argument regarding independence. My point is that, there being no real reason for North America to be divided in 1783, what is now known as "Canada" would have become independent as part of the various states of the United States like Ohio, Michigan, etc. If this had happened, the very term "Canada" would not be used now to describe anything outside of Quebec.

The situation is similar with regards to Ireland after it was divided in 1922. The people in independent Ireland strongly believed they should control all of Ireland including northern Ireland in spite of the fact that the protestant majority wanted to remain with the U.K. and referred to their region as "Ulster" to artificially differentiate it.

To reiterate, there was no particular reason for the British to care about exactly what would happen to the French Canadians, given that they had recently been considered a conquered people. There is also no particular obligation for the losers of a civil war to have there own little country.

CJK (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am lost as to the purpose of this discussion. You have put forward a number of hypothetical outcomes for the War of 1812, which did not occur and therefore have no place in the article and you have also suggested some equally hypothetical outcomes for the earlier war of independence which has less relevance. The constitutional niceties of the British Empire are also equally irrelevant. I don't believe anyone challenges that one outcome of the war was that Canada remained under British suzerainty for many years. Most of us agree that modern Canadians, particularly in Ontario perhaps, believe that the War of 1812 contributed to the development of a sense of nationhood separate from the United States (initially as part of the British Empire) which again took many years to come to complete fruition as an independent sovereign state. So what are we discussing here again? Dabbler (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the article de-emphasizes British control as important to the development of a separate Canadian identity when the fact of the matter is there would be no Canada today if it wasn't for British and American loyalist desires to retain North American territory for the crown in 1782-3. Absent those desires all of British North America would have been given independence in 1783, would be part of the United States, and its inhabitants would all identify as Americans (with the possible exception of the French Canadians, who make up a minority of Canada today).

CJK (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Produce a reliable source that supports you, then. And even if you do, Wikipedia is not for speculation about what might have happened. "Absent those desires", Britain might have sold its colonies in North America to another power. Or it might have ceded them to natives. Or, it might have granted them independence separately. Or it might have retained part and discarded the rest. Or it might .... go write an alternate history novel.

I also object to your idea that these colonies would have been independent. In your scenario, they would have become part of the United States, not independent. And it should be noted that French Canadians were a majority in 1812. Rwenonah (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting edit war. I haven't done much editing on this page, but the degree to which Britain controlled Canada seems like a low-priority topic for this particular article. In the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, it was French vs British. But by 1812, the war involved so many French militia's and native troops that the characterization of the war as between Britain and the US (which seems to me to be the main point of this Talk topic) seems misleading. Maybe it's something CJK could address in the British colonization of the Americas article? Ian Furst (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Produce a source for what, exactly? The British desire to control Canada after losing the thirteen colonies? The fact that non-French Canada originated from American loyalists in reaction to independence? Do you really need sources to prove that?

The only other power possibly interested in acquiring Canada would be France, the last country the British would want to give any territory to. Even if they did, the French explicitly renounced any rights to Canada in the 1778 treaty of alliance. [2] Giving it back to the Indians would be unheard of and would lead to its annexation by the U.S. anyway, as would "separate" independence. By the way, the thirteen colonies were granted independence separately from one another, it was only later that the U.S. constitution formally united them.

If they were made part of the United States they would be part of an independent nation, just like Americans are in all 50 states today. There would be no need for a separate country to exist to confirm independence any more than there was or is a need for Texas, California, Alaska, or Florida to be a separate country. The only reason to keep "Canada" separate was so the British could control it. And once again, even if you don't think that it was possible for the French to integrate that argument does not apply to any of the English-speaking territories.

CJK (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't follow the argument you're making CJK. I think you're saying that, it's intuitively obvious that Canada was without a distinct identity (from Britain) in 1812 (and I think you propose we lacked it until 1931). If you made the argument for 1759 or 1763, I might go along with it. Did Britain seek to control Canada in 1812 - of course, after all they sent many troops. Did the people of Canada fight to protect British interests or their own, as Canadians - I think so after all, how do you explain the massive French militias during the war? What possible motivation would French Canadians have to volunteer? Loyalty to the British? Doubtful given it was 40 years since the 7 years war. As far as English-speaking territories, given the presence of French in Acadia and the lack of English west of Kingston (

, most of Canada had French at that time. I don't agree (nor do I see reliable references) that Canada exists separately from the US solely because of the British governments desires between 1763 and 1816. I do see evidence, that the populace did not have a desire to declare independence in lock-step with the eastern states. Our own rebellions of 1837 and 1838, the Durham report, etc... all provide evidence of the desire of autonomy from Britain well before 1931. The US was not the only country whose citizens spilt blood to control their own destiny (incidentally my ancestors fought in the War of 1812 both as regular troops and French militia). The motivations of the regular troops, English Militia, French Militia and native troops may all be different, but I don't think that it's fair to say it was a desire to back the British desire for control of Canadian territory. Ian Furst (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Republic of Canada Almost contains the lyrics of a song from 1837 that shows how loyalist Upper Canadians saw themselves, the British, the Americans, Canada and the War of 1812.[3] Uncle Jonathon refers to Brother Jonathan, a precursor to Uncle Sam. Obviously it was not the only view.

Now Uncle Jonathon be wise/And of yourselves take care, Sir,/For each Canadian loudly cries/"Invade us if you dare," Sir.

The Spirits of our Wolfe and Brock/Do still around us hover,/And still we stand on Queenston Rock/To drive those Yankees over.

No slave shall ever breathe our air,/No Lynch Law e'er shall bind us,/So keep your Yankee mobs at Home,/For Britons still you'll find us.

TFD (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument that because some militia was recruited (you claim "massive"--I'm not sure how that is quantified) and followed orders from their superiors it means that they fought for "their interests". Even so, there was also a large amount of American militia that fought with the British during the Revolutionary War. They successfully recruited militia around the areas they controlled, in fact the loyalist militia outnumbered the entire Continental Army at times.

The leaders of the American Revolution repeatedly made clear, even before the Revolution began, that they believed Canada should be part of the union of states. They asked for Canada in 1782, but were refused. Why exactly would the British care if they gave up Canada, just like they gave up the other thirteen colonies, other than wanting to control it? Does anyone really think it was due to their deep concern for the welfare of the French Canadians?

CJK (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There were commercial interests. The fur trade, lumber from NB, fish from Nfld, and the port of Halifax helping to maintain British control of cross-Atlantic shipping, which they also used to end the slave trade. Also, the Crown had the obligation to protect subjects. Even today, the U.K. protects a number of overseas territories. TFD (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There were commercial interests.

Exactly, that proves my point regarding there being a desire to control.

Also, the Crown had the obligation to protect subjects.

Their French "subjects" were conquered by them in 1760 and ruled without regards to their religious sensibilities until 1774. It wasn't until serious trouble began in the thirteen colonies that they suddenly became so concerned about protecting their "subjects" there. Moreover, Canada was under a British military government in 1783. There was no legitimate means for the Canadians to express their wishes.

CJK (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Articles of Confederation actually had specific provisions for Canada's ascension into the union:

Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. [4]

So on what basis is there going to be a tyrannical American rule over Canada?

CJK (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Catholics in Quebec had at least the same rights as Catholics in the U.K. and most U.S. states. They were free to worship but could not hold public office until 1774.

What basis was there for doubting the U.S. when the Continental Congress drafted the Articles in 1776? Maybe the Suffolk Resolves they passed unanimously in 1774, which said Catholics had "dispersed impiety, persecution, murder and rebelluion throughout every part of the world." Maybe it was the Declaration of Independence, which condemned the U.K. for allowing Quebec to have its own civil code. Maybe it was because the American colonists were the driving force behind the expulsion of the Acadians and the conquest of Quebec. Maybe because John Jay and others tried to exclude Catholics from American citizenship.

TFD (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Catholics in Quebec had at least the same rights as Catholics in the U.K. and most U.S. states. They were free to worship but could not hold public office until 1774.

That isn't the issue. The point is that since they were considered second-class citizens, why exactly would they be so concerned about their welfare?

Maybe the Suffolk Resolves they passed unanimously in 1774, which said Catholics had "dispersed impiety, persecution, murder and rebelluion throughout every part of the world."

Source? I find no evidence that they said that.

Maybe it was the Declaration of Independence, which condemned the U.K. for allowing Quebec to have its own civil code.

The Declaration of Independence said: For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

Maybe it was because the American colonists were the driving force behind the expulsion of the Acadians and the conquest of Quebec.

The expulsions were ordered by Nova Scotia, not any of the rebel colonists. The conquest of Quebec was organized by the British.

Maybe because John Jay and others tried to exclude Catholics from American citizenship.

I'm not sure what timeframe you are referencing but the fact he was unsuccessful proves my point.

CJK (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

They were not considered to be second class citizens since citizenship was not created until 1947. Different classes of subjects had different rights and responsibilities. The Quebec Act allowed Catholics special rights they did not enjoy in the U.S. Here is a link to a source discussion the Suffolk Resolves. Britain "abolish[ed] the free system of English laws" by restoring the pre-conquest French civil law which continues today. Obviously the British order the conquest and the expulsion but it was in American interests, which were at the time loyal colonies. It was unsettled in 1775 whether Catholics could be citizens.

Regardless, French Canadians were unlikely to consider pre-1774 conditions when deciding whether to rebel against Britain in 1812.

TFD (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you know what I meant to say, namely that there is no reason why the British should suddenly be so "concerned" about them.

The anti-Catholic quote did not come from the Suffolk Resolves, but rather the Continental Congress's "Address to the inhabitants of Great Britain". Its purpose was to appeal to anti-Catholic feeling in Britain at a time when Britain often warred with Catholic France and Spain. Most French Canadians were perfectly aware that protestants despised their religion, the issue was whether or not they would be actively persecuted. The fact is when the patriot army occupied Montreal they did not persecute Catholics.

You ignore the important second part of the statement in the declaration, which is that the British were accused of abolishing common law as part of a plan to introduce arbitrary government via the establishment of a legislative council appointed by the royal governor instead of elected by the people.

American interests in the 1750s consisted of moving into the Ohio Valley not conquering Quebec, which they had little or no interest in.

CJK (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ohio was part of Quebec. All American colonies in 1774 had royal governors and unelected upper houses except Quebec, which had always had "arbitrary government." The U.K. became concerned about French Canadians when they became British subjects. It may be the U.S. was not anti-Catholic but that was not the perception in Quebec. TFD (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ohio was never part of Quebec until 1774, when the boundaries were arbitrarily expanded. Please provide evidence regarding the Quebec government prior to 1774.

Either way, I find your premises utterly preposterous, a) that 18th century protestant Britain retained Canada out of their deep concern for Catholics (after suppressing the Irish for last 600 years) and b) that the Congress was lying when they offered Canada the same autonomy and rights that other states had.

CJK (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The colony was called "Canada" until 1763, when the British re-named it as Quebec, and included the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. Obviously Ohio had little value without access to the Atlantic, which could only be achieved through conquest of the entire province. The discussion is not about the motives of the U.K. or US but about French Canadian perception. They did not perceive that the U.S. would treat them better than the UK. And Pitt who came to office in 1783 fought unsuccessfully for Catholic emancipation and allowed Irish MPs to sit in parliament. English domination of Ireland btw predated Protestantism in England.

Are there any specific changes to the article you are recommending?

TFD (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

French "Canada" was merely one province of New France, and it did not include the Ohio area, which was part of Louisiana and called "Illinois country". Ohio was never dependent on the St. Lawrence river.

French Canadian perception played no role in any of this. They did not have an elected government which could express their views on joining the American confederacy.

The Irish Catholic MPs were not allowed to sit in parliament until 1829. Even after that the Irish obviously resented the consequences of the union.

I just want the article acknowledge the vital role played by British rule in the foundation of Canada's identity.

CJK (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ohio was not part of the Illinois country, which would only be ceded to the U.S. as part of the Louisiana purchase. Even though the goverment was unable to achieve Catholic emancipation in the UK until 1829, they were able to achieve it in Quebec in 1774. Although the habitants could not vote, the point is they did not rebel, as the American colonists did.

I do not see the point of your final sentence. The War of 1812 led to a sense of identity in Upper Canada who believed they had proved their loyalty. Before that people were more likely to identify themselves with their place of origin, or their parents' origin.

TFD (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong, Illinois country was ceded to the U.S. in 1783. Given Britain's behavior in Ireland, there is no reason why they should be so concerned about 100,000 French Canadians. The Canadians could not have rebelled if they wanted to, given the strength of the British authorities in the province compared to their small numbers and their position of isolation from the other colonies. Even if we presume that most Canadians did not want to rebel, the same could be said for other colonies as well. Pennsylvania for example had a loyalist assembly, the patriots actually had to get rid of it so they could issue the Declaration of Independence.

Loyalty to who? The British, ultimately.

CJK (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think that the Illinois Country was ceded to the U.S. in 1783, then you can argue your case in that article. In fairness part of it was conquered by the U.K. and ceded to the U.S., but it never included Ohio. And of course the area had little value without access to an ocean. The number of French Canadians was actually not small number compared to only 100 British soldiers. Your comparison of Quebec and Ireland is dubious: the England conquered Ireland when England was Catholic, Catholics were given full civil rights in Quebec in 1774, and no attempt was ever made to establish the Anglican church. In any case we cannot go back to 1775 of 1812 and persuade the French Canadians they were wrong. Loyalty btw was to the Crown. TFD (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is that Ohio was never part of Quebec/Canada until 1774. Ohio had access to the Atlantic, the southern part of the state far from Lake Erie was settled early on as was Kentucky. The Ireland analogy goes beyond religion, its to show that the British had no problem ruling over the Irish against their will, so they had no reason to care about the U.S. claiming Canada. I believe there were more than 100 British soldiers there. The Battle of Longue-Pointe article claims that in 1775 there were 800 regulars maintaining a population of 90,000 people, which is a proportionately larger presence than the U.S. had in Iraq in 2007. In any case, the population centers were disconnected from the thirteen colonies and were easily accessible by the St. Lawrence River which was near the British naval base at Nova Scotia. The issue is not the French Canadians being wrong, since they were not given any voice. The issue is the British dividing North America so they can maintain some control. The crown was a figurehead by 1775, Parliament had all the real power.

CJK (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"The crown was a figurehead by 1775, Parliament had all the real power." So that whole Declaration of Independence thing was a massive libel against George III; he should have sued the rebels into bankruptcy instead of fighting!. Dabbler (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why Quebec did not secede

This unexplained edit[5] implies that Quebec remained within the Empire due to "a strong military government at that time with a garrison of 800 British regulars overseeing an isolated population of 90,000." It also ignores the 150,000 aboriginal inhabitants and implies that the regulars were concentrated in a garrison, when in fact they were thinly spread. The editor has explained his views of reluctance of French Canadians to join the revolution, but I do not see anyone agreeing with him and will therefore reverse. Please do not re-add without discussion. TFD (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Another editor removed the entire section "Division of North America in 1783" with which I agree. TFD (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

that was me. This is an encyclopedia with many articles, and people interested in that period should be reading other articles not this one. I think in terms of students with 20 minutes to study an article and make notes on what to remember (maybe for a quiz tomorrow), and they are best served by our getting to the point. Rjensen (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia is supposed to cater to the needs of high school students. To resolve this I'll insert a brief account into a pre-existing section.

The "aboriginal inhabitants" were almost entirely uninterested in making common cause with the rebels, if anything they should be placed in the British column. The troops allegedly being "thinly spread" is of no conceivable relevance. They were perfectly able to concentrate large numbers at will, such as at Fort St. John. Nevertheless, I won't reinsert it.

CJK (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You have added "irredentism" to the title of the section on American Expansionism. Your reasoning appears to be that Quebec was rightfully a part of the country before it became independent, and therefore the U.S. was entitled to take it back. I do not think that anyone has argued this and there certainly is no consensus to support it. TFD (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, the term "irredentism" does not imply that the said claim was justifiable. That said, all of Britain's colonies in North America were called "American" colonies before the Revolution, indicating a unitary entity. "Canada" was just used as an alternative to "Quebec" and only became more broadly associated in order to distinguish between United States and United Kingdom jurisdictions. The article already contains evidence of prior American claims to Quebec and their desires to drive the British off the North American continent, a desire which began in the Revolutionary War.

CJK (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The term "American" referred to the continent, not a political entity. In any case no one has argued that the U.S. was trying to recover Quebec. You need sources to add that view. TFD (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The British referred to the Atlantic territory under their control as just "America" or "North America" in their legislation, so yes it was a political entity. When the colonists established a "Continental Congress" they were not talking about Spanish possessions or just the thirteen colonies, but rather the territory where the rights of British subjects ought to apply. "Irredentism" does not have to mean "recovery". Germany never controlled Austria or the Sudetenland yet their claims their have been regarded as "irredentist".

CJK (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No they did not. Please provide a source or drop the claim. Incidentally, they did not use the term "British subject", and spoke of the rights of Englishmen, viz., rights under the laws of England. TFD (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In legislation imposing custom duties they lumped in all the colonies in America under the same regulations [6] indicating that they considered them as one entity merely divided for the sake of political convenience. I'm not sure what your point is regarding it being English rights or British rights.

In any event, there is ample evidence to show that the rebel colonies claimed and considered Quebec as one amongst them.

CJK (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Re the comment; "all of Britain's colonies in North America were called "American" colonies before the Revolution", the legislation refers to "British colonies and plantations in America". I'm not sure what the point is though. Britain considered more than one colony in the Americas (the Province of Quebec was one of them). I don't see how this legislation supports the contention that the rebel colonialists considered the Province of Quebec as one amongst them.Ian Furst (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The legislation lumped all the colonies in America under the same regulations, which showed that they were considered unitary within the empire. Otherwise they would just pass individual acts for each particular colony. The rebel colonist claim does not come from that legislation but rather the letters to the inhabitants of Canada, the invasion of Canada (1775), specific provisions in the Articles of Confederation and the Franco-American Alliance, and claims made during peace negotiations in 1782. I am just using the legislation to show how the British viewed America.

CJK (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

IOW you now agree that the British did not refer to their colonies as "America." Certainly there were some laws that referred specifically to HM colonies in America, but that did not create a political entity. For example the Colonial Debtors Act 1732 applied to the American colonies and was later amended to include Australia. That does not mean that Australia and Canada were merged into one country. Later legislation was written that applied to all the colonies, that did not mean that all the colonies became a country distinct from the U.K. TFD (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It was not a formal political entity, but it was frequently treated in legislation just as if it was one. Australia and Canada are so far away from each other that they had to be considered separate. That logic does not apply to the North American colonies which were literally right next to each other.

Also, Canada and Australia were divided into distinct political entities prior to being made whole by the British parliament. That doesn't mean that we should conclude that Nova Scotia wasn't integral to Canada before 1867.

CJK (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The act was amended before either country formed a federation. NS was of course governed separately as was Newfoundland until 1949. Barbados and the Turks and Caicos both applied to join Canada, but were turned down. You need a source that says the British colonies in America were one country. TFD (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You dodged the point, which is that provinces like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were and are considered "Canadian" even before they were officially were united in 1867. This very article uses "Canada" to describe all of the provinces in Canada today that were not united during the war of 1812.

I never said they were "one country" I said they were a unitary entity. Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick were part of a unitary entity called "Canada" or "British North America" even before 1867. Likewise, Canada/Quebec and Nova Scotia were part of the unitary entity known as "America" before 1783. After 1783 the United States alone was called "America" and the British part called "Canada" or "British North America" to distinguish it.

CJK (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nova Scotia was never considered to be part of Canada until it joined the Canadian confederation in 1867. Upper and Lower Canada were merged into a single colony in 1841. When the province was merged with NS and NB, various names were suggested, including Columbia and Laurentia, but Canada was chosen. Your view that anyone considers the U.S. to be entitled to any territory in America is not shared by anyone. I do not see any Americans saying they want the Falklands back. TFD (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

By your own reasoning all references to "Canada" should be removed from this article. If it wasn't called "Canada" then it was called "British North America".

I don't know what you are referring to with regards to the Falklands or the U.S. being entitled to territory. The British had a slew of colonies in North America by 1775. These colonies were viewed as intimately related to each other on both sides of the Atlantic, the evidence I gave was the legislation of the British parliament and the numerous assertions made by the Continental Congress.

The claim of the American rebels was that the British parliament had no right to govern them in internal matters. Their argument applied equally throughout the parts of the American continent under British control, which is why they tried to draw in Quebec, the only other colony that was accessible given British naval supremacy. It was not a desire for 13 colonies to rule over a 14th, but to have the 14th enlist as an equal, sovereign member. This article already contains references of American desires to kick the British off the continent, my point is that these desires began during the Revolutionary War and were not just thought up immediately before the war of 1812--hence the term "irredentism".

CJK (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The term Canada in the article is used consistently either to refer to the two Canadian provinces of Upper and Lower Canada or to the country established in 1867. "Kicking" the British off the continent is not irridentism, any more than removing French presence was. You need a source anyway that that was the objective. (I assume by "British" you are referring to the U.K., not their subjects.) TFD (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Even you slipped up: the two Canadian provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. There were no "Canadian" provinces at that time because Canada did not exist (per your own argument). In any case, nobody who reads "Canada" by itself is going to think of anything except the country established in 1867.

It was "irredentism" because a specific claim to the Canada area was advanced by the American rebels during the Revolutionary War. The war against the French happened when the colonies were not independent. The British never argued that Canadians should belong to them rather than the French and were not seeking to include Canada in their own nation. The article already contains references alleging that was the objective.

CJK (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada was the name of the French colony when it was ceded to the U.K., and re-named Quebec. Quebec was divided into two colonies which were re-united as Canada in 1841. It is not slipping up to refer to the colonies as "Canadian" and the two together were commonly referred to as Canada or less frequently "The Canadas." The 1775 invasion of Quebec was not irredentism - the U.S. had not even been created. However the article does not and should refer to NS and NB as Canadian. It is of no relevance that the U.K. did not intend to incorporate Canada into the U.K. TFD (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You omitted a rather important detail, which is that the Upper Canada half only became "Canadian" because the British arbitrarily expanded Quebec's borders in 1774. It seems inappropriate for the purposes of this article to refer to the French and English provinces as indiscriminately "Canadian".

So when the results box at the top screen says Ended support for military annexation of Canada by US. that will be read by the common reader as "annexation of Upper and Lower Canada but not New Brunswick or Nova Scotia"?

Nobody said the 1775 invasion of Quebec was irredentism. The 1812 invasion was irredentism and the 1775 invasion is merely advanced as one piece of evidence of a prior claim. Sparring over colonial possessions is in fact completely different than believing said territory belongs within your own country.

CJK (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Since historians refer to the two provinces as Canada so should we. You need to find a source that connects the terms "irredentism" and "War of 1812", otherwise you are just arguing personal opinion. TFD (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? Historians who refer to "Canada" are referring to the specific provinces of upper and lower Canada exclusively and are not referring to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, or Rupert's land? Do you have any evidence for that astonishing assertion?

It is not necessary for us to have a source that says "irredentism" for that term to be used. However, if you would prefer otherwise we can simply lay out the facts without using that specific word to describe it.

CJK (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

To paraphrase you, "It seems inappropriate for the purposes of this article to the Maritime provinces as indiscriminately "Canadian". And this article does not. And yes you need a source that uses the term "irredentism" otherwise it is or. TFD (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that when "Canada" is used people are thinking of the territory of modern nation of Canada. Do you believe support for military annexation of Canada by US was confined to the two Canadas exclusively, and not the maritime provinces? Does that make any sense?

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article I gave you earlier said the Americans "renewed" their efforts to annex Canada to the American union after first trying to incite a continent-wide revolt during the Revolution. This article already states with sources However, a significant minority of historians believes that a desire to annex Canada did bring on the war. They point out that annexation would achieve the long-standing goal of driving the British out of North America, permanently solve the Indian problem, and gain a significant amount of valuable land.

It also quotes Jefferson speaking in glowing terms of driving the British off the North American continent. Was that not a goal of the Revolutionary War?

So what more exactly do you need to justify laying out the facts in full, whether or not we use the precise word "irredentism"? Are you really arguing that the rebel American claims during the Revolutionary war are of no importance here?

CJK (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to follow what the sources say, not or. TFD (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

???????????????????

How do I respond to this total disregard of what I wrote?

CJK 03:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC) (not signing my name for whatever reason)

One idea is for CJK to go away and do some reading--after repeated challenges he comes up with a 1911 encyclopedia article that takes no account of 100 years of scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The scholarship of 100 years ago was recording an event that happened 200 years ago. Was there some groundbreaking scholarship that happened in the second 100 years, that was somehow missed during the first 100 years?

I not only cited the 1911 encyclopedia article but also the very words that already exist and are sourced in the article.

I am reinserting the two paragraphs without the word "irredentism" since that seems to be a touchy issue. I see no reason to withhold this basic background material from the reader.

CJK (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

To the editors of the page; CJK - Your frustration with the group seems to be building so I thought I'd leave a quick message here. I'm someone with a less-than-scholarly understanding of the War of 1812 and the period between 1775 and the start of the war. Your arguments on the talk page opened up an aspect of the war that I'd never really considered. Namely, the many ways in which modern day Canada was viewed through the prism of the War of independence. I know this may sound naïve to you, but it wasn't an aspect of the war that I'd spent a lot of time thinking about. That said, the strength of Wikipedia comes from the ability to build consensus between the editors WP:CON. This page is showing that principal in action. When I read the arguments and reread the sources provided, my (less-than-scholarly) opinion remains with the consensus opinion. Please take some solace from the fact that even the talk page is an educational tool - especially for me. Not every learning opportunity has to find it's way to the front page of the article. 03:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out for the sake of clarity that CJK seems not to have read the sources from the article he is quoting, none of which include any of the background material he is inserting or support its use in reference to the War of 1812 (insofar as I know). I, having added said sources, would point out that they also do not support purging all references to "Canadian militia", replacing the word "annexation" with the much more benign "incorporation", referring to Canada only as "British North America", the use of the word "irridentism", etc. Rwenonah (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

UK vs GB

Rjensen wants to use the term Great Britain to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the grounds that this is what most reliable sources use. In this case I strongly believe that the reliable sources should not govern the usage because we are not referencing or depending on those reliable sources to establish the combatants. While many people do use the term Great Britain to refer to the United Kingdom, they also often say England when referring to the same entity. Both are examples of the tendency to use a part to represent the whole, and therefore inaccurate. Especially in the lede of the article, we should use the correct term rather than a short form. Dabbler (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen has suggested that no country called the United Kingdom has ever existed, by the same argument neither does the United States exist. He also suggest that Wikipedia prefers Great Britain or Britain but the main article on the UK is called simply United Kingdom. I have no objection to using Britain or Great Britain elsewhere in the article for simplicity and brevity but I do feel that in the lede we should use the more correct version of the name. Dabbler (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by the reliable secondary sources, and NOT on what other Wikipedia articles might say. The RS heavily prefer Great Britain/Britain. In general, historians on topics before 1945 use Great Britain, while post 1945 "United Kingdom" is usual in social science writing. "United Kingdom" for 1812 era is not considered "more correct" by scholars, editors, publishers and other experts. It gets used because a lot of Wiki editors have no history training and are unaware of the issue. Rjensen (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I prefer Great Britain because that was the name most commonly used at the time. Also, since the country only became the UK in 1801, we could have confusion if we refer to events before that time. TFD (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

−

I think the current use of the full and correct names for both parties in the lede is the correct compromise with an appropriate link to the historical Kingdom article as it differs from modern usage. Dabbler (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why my paragraphs are "irrelevant"

Saying that what happened in the Revolutionary War is irrelevant to the War of 1812 is like saying that what happened in World War I is irrelevant to World War II or that what happened in the Gulf War is irrelevant to the Iraq War. What happened in the Revolutionary War created the situation that led up to the War of 1812.

Specifically with regards to "Canada", there would be no need to invade or annex "Canada" if the British had granted independence to what is now "Canada" after the Revolutionary War, as the rebels had requested and actively fought for. So please, explain once again the "irrelevance" of these well-documented facts.

CJK 18:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that your interpretation of the relevance of the U.S. Revolution to the War of 1812 is not accepted by any reliable sources. BTW do you have any sources that the rebels requested the independence of any colonies outside "the thirteen united States of America"? TFD (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The rebels did not, as you seem to think, fight for the independence of Canada. Their goals in reference to "Canada" were

1.To drive the British from North America entirely, if possible and

2. To gain control over additional territory and over a much-disliked ethnic group that they had fought during the French and Indian War.

Had the British ceded Canada to the United States, its inhabitants would have been disenfranchised and stripped of their religion and culture (or, if you prefer, assimilated). It would certainly not have been independence, which implies an independent state, not a minority with no stake in government. Rwenonah (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that your interpretation of the relevance of the U.S. Revolution to the War of 1812 is not accepted by any reliable sources.

I gave you an article from the 1911 Encyclopedia. You claim it is outdated, but provide no evidence that their judgments have been proven wrong.

BTW do you have any sources that the rebels requested the independence of any colonies outside "the thirteen united States of America"?

The article Treaty of Paris (1783) mentions that they requested the British concede Canada in 1782. This is mentioned in other articles as well.

To drive the British from North America entirely

Which includes Canada.

Had the British ceded Canada to the United States

Canada would not have been ceded "to the United States" it would have been granted independence individually just like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. After that, it could have joined the union under the articles of confederation and then the U.S. constitution.

its inhabitants would have been disenfranchised and stripped of their religion and culture

There is absolutely no evidence of this whereas there is much evidence to the contrary. The articles of confederation offered Canada the same sovereign rights as the other states, which means it could do whatever it wanted in terms of religion and language. The same would apply under the U.S. constitution.

CJK (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ceding Quebec is not the same thing as granting it independence. Note that all 13 states all declared independence and voluntarily agreed to join the federation. The U.S. has never admitted a state without the request of its citizens. TFD (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The treaty of Paris said:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

So under this procedure Quebec would be granted independence separately under an interim government, then it could decide to join the American confederacy. Given the looseness of the articles of confederation, I see no reason why they would not.

CJK (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Franklin wrote to Jay, "And I hinted that if England should make us a Voluntary Offer of Canada expressly for that purpose [reparations], it might have a good Effect."[7] That is very different from the 13 colonies which each demanded and received independence and voluntarily formed a union with one another. Also there was no claim that Canada belonged to the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course. Canada was completely under control of the British in 1782, so it had to be offered up by the British. It could not have declared independence if it wanted to.

Also there was no claim that Canada belonged to the U.S. Indeed there was not. The articles of confederation stated Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. [8] The claim was that Canada should be part of, not belong to, the United States.

CJK (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing stopping the U.K. from granting Quebec independence without ceding it to the U.S. No idea how if they could not declare independence they could accede to the U.S. In fact Canadian patriots declared independence in 1837-38. TFD (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at. Once again, the probable procedure would be for the British to grant independence to Quebec first and then Quebec would enter into the union after independence was established.

00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That is pure speculation and must be considered to be an exercise in alternative historical fiction, therefore it has no place in a fact-based encyclopedia. Dabbler (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That was not the requested procedure. TFD (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly was the "requested procedure" then? Even if that wasn't the "requested procedure" the British, who you portray as oh-so-concerned about the welfare of French people, could have made that the procedure. Just grant it independence and leave.

CJK (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you not respond to my comment that this is entirely ahistorical speculation and therefore has no place in Wikipedia? Dabbler (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Franklin did not ask the U.K. to grant Quebec independence. BTW, you brought up Quebec because of your irredentism theory. Now that you have abandoned that there is no reason to continue this line of discussion. TFD (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dabbler: We're talking about it because TFD disputes my statement regarding the American negotiators requesting the independence of Quebec (a historical fact and not speculation, no matter which way you look at it). It doesn't need to be stated like that in the article if there is a problem with that wording.

TFD: I don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. The colonies were granted independence as individuals, and that would also be the case for Quebec whether or not it joined the confederacy before or afterwards in accordance with article XI of the confederation.

It wasn't "my theory", irredentism is just the word used to describe a situation when one country has historical claims on a territory. Since you have a problem with that word, I am fine with not using it. But the events of the American Revolution obviously form a crucial background to the contents of this article, and ignoring them makes no sense.

CJK (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The American negotiators did not request the independence of Quebec, Franklin "hinted" that the U.K. should cede Quebec to the U.S. as war reparations, neither of which has anything to do with irredentism. The U.S. never said they had "historical claims" on Canada." TFD (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The wording was "England should make us a Voluntary Offer of Canada". Based on that, I'm not sure how you know what the exact procedure would be. I would think the British would make the arrangements for an interim government, grant it independence, and then Quebec would join the union. This would make the most sense and safeguard all of Quebec's rights. But let's suppose you are right and Quebec temporarily became U.S. "public land" for the purposes of a transition. It still would have been made a state in due course in accordance with article XI.

I never said that there were historical claims as of the Revolution era. I said claims were made during the Revolution era and that this is evidence of irredentism as of 1812. Since you have a problem with that word, we don't have to use it.

CJK 17:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The procedure would have been that the U.K. would cede Quebec to the U.S. just as France would later cede Louisiana. The "independence" scenario is just alternative history, beyond the scope of the article. I imagine an independent Quebec would have turned to France for protection, something neither the British nor the Americans would have desired. TFD (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, even if you are correct about the procedure Quebec/Canada still would have been promptly made into a state. The states were all sovereign entities before 1789, and after 1789 formed a sovereign nation. So yes, I am correct regarding the independence of Quebec.

The French renounced all rights to Canada in the 1778 treaty of alliance. If the united States should think fit to attempt the Reduction of the British Power remaining in the Northern Parts of America, or the Islands of Bermudas, those Countries or Islands in case of Success, shall be confederated with or dependent upon the said united States... The Most Christian King renounces for ever the possession of the Islands of Bermudas as well as of any part of the continent of North america which before the treaty of Paris in 1763. or in virtue of that Treaty, were acknowledged to belong to the Crown of Great Britain, or to the united States heretofore called British Colonies, or which are at this Time or have lately been under the Power of The King and Crown of Great Britain. [9]

CJK (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no guarantee Quebec would have become a so-called "sovereign entity". When in similar situations, the U.S. has generally disenfranchised and placed under military government the territory in question (for example, Cuba, the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, or the Phillipines). Also, you seem to think that joining the U.S. is somehow independence. This is false; had Quebec become part of the U.S., it would have been part of the U.S., not independent. An area cannot somehow be part of another country and independent.

Also, 19th century statesmen (or modern ones, for that matter) aren't noted for their abilities to sticck to the terms of treaties. Your naiveté in assuming that France would have stuck to the terms of the treaty is considerable. Regardless, there are still several other colonial powers which might have interceded in Quebec, possibly with the support of the people.

And a third point: why do you persist in making sourceless speculation about the theoretical fate of Quebec after the Revolutionary War? It is meaningless, of no benefit to the article, and wastes the time of everyone actually attempting to contribute to this page. Consensus is clearly against you ; you have no sources and your arguments are invalid regardless. Rwenonah (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

for example, Cuba, the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, or the Phillipines

Utterly laughable, all those were overseas territories, mostly composed of non-whites, acquired more than 100 years after the American Revolution. There was never any pretense that they should be incorporated into the U.S. Moreover, I already gave solid evidence that they considered Canada on equal footing (article XI of the confederation) so your speculation can be laid to rest.

Also, you seem to think that joining the U.S. is somehow independence. This is false; had Quebec become part of the U.S., it would have been part of the U.S., not independent.

Before the constitution came into effect in 1789 the states were considered sovereign entities under a loose confederation. So yes, they would have independence.

naiveté in assuming that France would have stuck to the terms of the treaty

It was utterly worthless to France, they were far more interested in the sugar colonies in the Caribbean.

It is meaningless, of no benefit to the article

I am merely putting forth one result of the Revolutionary War. Do you seriously believe that what happened in the Revolutionary War is of no relevance to this war?

22:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, there was no pretense that the Phillipines be incorporated, and the Panama Canal ZOne was nothing more than blatant imperialism, but serious proposals were made that Cuba and Puerto Rico be incorporated. They were denied statehood on the grounds of cultural differences, and Cuba was eventually granted "independence". Puerto Rico remains disenfranchised, actually. As all of these territories were Catholic-majority areas which spoke a different language seized from a European power, the paralells are obiouvs and many. Also, your repeated insistence that Canada would be "assimilated" directly implies that the Quebecois would be forced to accept mainstream American culture. It is true that Quebec would have theoretically been an sovereign entity; however, it would have been subject to a federal government made up of people little concerned with their welfare and/or true wishes. While France may have been more interested in the Carribean, if Quebec had requested French protection, which is likely, they would have happily taken control over this free territory.

Your attempt to pick my point apart above was both rude (its bad etiquette) and a failure (you addressed about three sentences out of twenty). And this is still meaningless speculation. Let us consider your part in this discussion.

1. You have no consensus.

2. You have no sources.

3.You are attempting to relate the theoretical fate of Quebec after the American Revolutionary War (something that didn't happen) to a much later war, in which Quebec played a minor part. it is still, to coin a phrase, irrelevant.

Rwenonah (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, the likely outcome of independence would be Quebec requesting protection of France rather than requesting U.S. statehood. CJK obviously believes that everyone in the world wants to be part of the U.S. and suggest he travel a bit and ask foreigners what they think. TFD (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, he seems unable to understand the idea that the inhabitants of Quebec and later Canada preferred being a British Dominion to being part of the U.S.Rwenonah (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no sources? Much to the contrary, I have given numerous sources. It is you and TFD that have resorted to unfounded speculation.

There were no "serious proposals" that Cuba or Puerto Rico be incorporated. Annexation of Cuba was renounced at the outset, not because of cultural differences but because of opposition in Congress and the fact that the Cuban insurgents wanted independence. Puerto Rico was acquired as an afterthought and nobody thought this distant island of non-whites should be incorporated. These examples, in any case, happened a century after the events we are discussing (about as off topic as one could possibly be). I gave you proof that they considered Canada on equal footing (article XI of the confederation) but you simply ignored it.

When I said Canada would be assimilated I was mainly referring to its English-speaking population, the population which is most impacted by the War of 1812. You appear to not understand some of the basics of U.S. constitutional law, the entire foundation of which is the division of powers between the states and the federal government. It isn't entirely clear to me what you think Quebec had to fear from a federal government that, under the articles of confederation, was utterly powerless in domestic affairs. In fact, under your bizarre reasoning the Americans in the 13 colonies did not achieve independence after 1776 because they established a federal government.

I gave specific language from the 1778 treaty of alliance which showed that France renounced all rights to Canada in favor of the U.S., moreover I pointed out the lack of value Canada had to France. Your response? Just assume, without evidence, that the French are lying.

I have not guessed whether or not the people of Quebec preferred being British rule, it seems wildly inappropriate to do so without any hard evidence. But I have already freely conceded that the English-speaking population wanted British rule, and pointed out that was precisely because of the influence of American loyalists fleeing their country because they did not want it to be independent. In practical terms English Canada was no different from loyalist strongholds like Philadelphia and New York City which had been taken by the rebels against the wishes of the inhabitants.

CJK (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You have provided no reliable secondary sources supporting your numerous additions to the page, or your various and contrasting interpretations of North American history. Your only sources are an edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica from 1911 and a treaty from the 18th century. Annexation of Cuba was renounced, but why renounce something unless there is support for it? And as for Puerto Rico, there have been and are multiple proposals to make it a state, although they've all failed. While the differences are obviously many, so are the parallels, and no example is without flaws.

As for the confederation you keep talking about, all it says is that Quebec could become as state- and that if it did, it would have to accede to American laws, stripping it of its law system, a highly valued apparatus the Quebecois wished to preserve (and did, under the Quebec Act). As for not understanding constitutional law, I don't see how consitutional law applies to the discussion at all, especially since your only source predates the constitution of the United States. And as for bizarre reasoning, here is an example: somehow, when Quebec became part of the United States, it would be independent. The definition of independence, by the wya, is "when as nation, country or state exercises self-government and independent authority over it territory". Since the federal government had and has some degree of authority over states, states are not independent entities, adn lose their independence when they enter the United States (like Texas). Therefore, a Quebec part of the U.S. is not independent. The 13 colonies achieved independence from Britain, and then became no longer independent entities, but part of a federation. There is a difference.

While the French may not have particularly valued Canada, if QUebec had requested to become French again, with France required to pay no price or penalty, simple logic dictates that France would have accepted. If the United States refused to accept the decision of the people of Quebec and forced Quebec into the Union, Quebec would certainly lose its independence, and would probably be put under military government. Also, this would discard the principle of the Revolution. Clearly, the people of Quebec did prefer being British to being American, since they fought against the Invasion of Quebec in large numbers.

But for the last time (actually, probably not), you have no reliable sources, consensus is against you, and you are meaninglessly speculating in a way that is of no benefit to the article. I suggest you go discuss this on an alternate history website, rather than wasting all of our time.Rwenonah (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter if the source was from 1911? There is no time limit on sources.

Your assertion regarding Quebec having to accept the types of laws of the other 13 states is utterly false. There is no statement in the articles of confederation about states having to adopt common law.

The U.S. federal government did not have sovereignty until the U.S. constitution took effect in 1789, so yes Quebec would be independent in the time period we are discussing. The declaration of independence said they were "free and independent states".

After 1789 Quebec probably would have joined the new union along with the other 13 states. They were an integral part of an independent nation, which they were not when under British rule. You use Texas as an example, do you believe that the people of Texas are under foreign rule because they are part of a larger nation? Obviously, Texans are all Americans and the United States is an independent country. The same would apply to Quebec. Canadians would be Americans and the United States is an independent nation.

The "price or penalty" of France in Canada would be the anger of the new United States, who would feel deeply threatened (and betrayed) by the re-establishment of French power in Canada. Why would the French want an accident waiting to happen? I don't know what "large numbers" you are talking about. In 1775 the British governor had to resort to drafting people through threats. Join the militia or get kicked out of the city.

This "alternative history" just happens to be the events that occurred during the Revolutionary War, which is the backstory to the War of 1812. I'll ask you again: do you believe that the Revolutionary War is irrelevant to the subject matter in this article?

CJK (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. You are entitled to your own opinion, false as it may be, and this discussion is becoming repetitive and useless. I continue to disagree;however, I see no point in continuing to discuss"improvements" to the article with someone who has nor reliable sources, no consensus, and irrelevant points. Rwenonah (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that Quebec did not want to join the United States, then or now, and by forcing it into the Union the U.S. would have discarded its own principles.Rwenonah (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I gave reliable sources, you gave none. I proposed improvements, you proposed no counterproposals apart from deletion. I explained the relevancy quite clearly, you have yet to explain why it is irrelevant.

I'm genuinely interested how you know what the state of public opinion was over 200 years ago. What principles are you talking about? The first thing they did was invade Quebec. Only 1/3 wanted independence in the first place and large parts of U.S. territory was acquired by conquest. When the southern states left the union they were forced back in.

21:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica can continue to be a resource for readers well into the 21st century, as long as editors use care and discretion in utilizing it. It is now quite old, and there are many problems with this material in a modern encyclopaedia. Even in 1917, the U.S. art critic, Willard Huntington Wright, criticized it as an unreliable source in his scathing Misinforming a Nation, a 200+ page critical examination of the problems with the encyclopedia. Wright saw the "myth" of the EB1911 being the best and greatest encyclopaedia as a testament to a successful marketing campaign which usually didn't hold up under critical examination" from The good, the bad and the uglyIan Furst (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what was posted a while ago, before things got "shouty": Quote the "Canada" entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says:

In 1775 began the American Revolution. Its leaders tried to make the revolt continental, and invaded Canada, hoping the French would join them... The war [of 1812] seemed to provide a renewed opportunity to annex Canada to the American Union... [10]

CJK (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Unquote

Can someone provide some contemporary secondary sources to support the above, or to counter the aforementioned assertions, in relation to what CJK has marked with bold font. Moreover, are there primary source transcripts on Wikiquote to support either argument. I felt this had lost direction somewhat Keith H99 (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The reasons for the U.S. invasion of Canada are already in the article, including a discussion of the view that the U.S. objective in 1812 was the annexation of Canada. While the first sentence is correct, I have not seen sources that connect the two events. The EB article is about Canada, not the War of 1812, and the wording CJK quotes is taken out of context. He omits for example, "Since [1775] any prospect of Canada's union to the united States has been very remote", which is why 1812 only "seemed to provide a renewed opportunity for annexation." The EB ascribes the cause of that war to events in Europe. TFD (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to CJK's earlier question about how I knew public opinion 200 years ago, I'm afraid I don't. However, I can infer with reasonable certainty that the Quebecois, all Catholics, would have been intimidated by the anti-Catholic views held by much of the population, including founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton and Sam Adams. Paul Revere wrote anti-Catholic cartoons. On October 21, 1774 the Continental Congress itself issued an address “to the People of Great Britain”, written by John Jay, Richard Henry Lee and William Livingston, which expressed shock that Parliament would promote a religion that “disbursed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellions through every part of the world.” It predicted that the measure would encourage Canadians to “act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked Ministry shall choose to direct them.” In short, it used anti-CAtholicism to help fuel the war. The British found this very ironic, as their nation also repressed Irish Catholics. While its impossible to tell what the Quebecois really thought, the British guaranteed their religious freedom, while the U.S. deliberately stirred up anti-Catholicism. Rwenonah (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We can assume that "public opinion", at least for the habitants, was what the church told them. TFD (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why they wouldn't want to join an anti-Catholic nation.Rwenonah (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't "Indians" offensive?

The article does state that "First Nations" is used in Canada, which is true, so why not use that instead? Or how about, "Native American" or "Aboriginal".

No. "Indian" is standard usage. (see for example the title of this recent major book: The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies (2010) by Alan Taylor; he is a winner of the Pulitzer prize.) The term "First Nation" is only used for Indian tribes in Canada. Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

However, given that the British Crown had allies in actual India, this might lead a non-American reader to assume that sepoy regiments were deployed to fight in North America. Which they weren't. Perhaps usage of a term such as aboriginal, or - here's a novel idea - actually listing the seperate nations that were allied (e.g. Iroquois, etc...) would be better. Again, this is a global site, and therefore should not be Americo-centric in POV or English language usage.

It's insulting to our readers to assume that after reading this long, complex article article they will still be mixed up about Indian sepoys and Indians in North America. Rjensen (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No less insulting than it is to call the aboriginal people of North America "Indians" five centuries after it has been established that they are not in India. It is antiquated language. Why not specifically list those nations allied to the British? The article can only be improved by doing so.

Have you actually looked at the article? The nations are listed in the infobox and referenced elsewhere. However, unfortunate it may be there are still remnants of the term Indian used in Canada at least, not only in legal terms (Indian Act, Indian reservations) nor only by white colonisers but also by some aboriginal people themselves. I would support a change to a more current usage but it is difficult to decide which would be better. Native Americans (although arguably referring to the continent not the country) would be confusing. First Nations is a Canadian usage. Aboriginals might be confused with native Australians. Dabbler (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps then, the best solution would be simply to remove any racial qualifier and simply refer to them as allies, generally, and by specific nation where the case applies. In the page on the Battle of Waterloo, the allies aren't qualified by their race, just their political dominion. If Wikipedia's policy is to have a neutral POV, then the act of applying a racial qualifier to certain groups and not others is a POV. If the entry on the Crimean War described the Ottoman Empire and its infidel allies, as opposed to just allies, I'm quite certain that wouldn't fly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.150.187 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't very clear who the allies are if you just say allies, Prussians? Portuguese? Mohawk? And how about the French and Indian War which is the name that the Americans refer to the North American part of the Seven Years War, should that be renamed too? By the way it really helps if you sign your contributions with ~~~~ which saves the Sinebot some work and avoids its entry which clogs up the history page. Dabbler (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that one could refer to specific nations at the time, unlike today when various bands are formally recognized as nations in treaties. TFD (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to use 'First Nations people [/etc]', that's OR. 'Native Americans' is common usage in the United States, while '(American) Indians' is as well, although sometimes considered insulting. I think the use of simply 'Indians' or 'Indian' might be too informal in many circumstances. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional Images

User:UnbiasedVictory has been adding images of the battles of the Chateauguay and Plattsburgh to the article below the montage. Since these images are twice the size of those in the montage, they seem to have more importance and neither is of great quality. In my opinion, the article was better without these additional images. What do other editors think? Rwenonah (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree. It's an information box, not an art gallery. I will remove the images shortly, unless there are objections from third parties. HLGallon (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

End of support for military annexation

The war did not end support in the US for military action against Britain over the annexation of territory in Canada. The 1844 Oregon Territory dispute covered large areas of what is now Canada and the US on the west coast. The slogan "Fifty Four Forty or Figh" was used by Americans to encourage military annexation of the parts of the territory up to the borders of Russian North America, in effect the province of British Columbia from the 49th parallel north. This indicates to me that the War of 1812 dd not end support of military action to annex Canada. Therefore the statement in the infobox is wrong. Dabbler (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

yes but the debate on Oregon never mentioned Canada--Oregon was an entirely separate British operation. There was no significant American military presence within 1000 miles and the "fight" was entirely rhetorical. BC joined Canada decades later. Rjensen (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The main problem I have is with the use of the word Canada in the article. Most readers of the infobox will assume that it means the modern country, not necessarily the restricted sense of 1812, in addition there were other border disputes where military action was threatened such as the Aroostook War of 1838-9.Dabbler (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The text you challenged said "military annexation of Canada", not that the U.S. and Canada ceased to have border disputes - they continue today - or that they ever escalated to battle. The "annexation of Canada" would mean the entire country. Cf., Mexico. The U.S. annexed half of Mexico, but never annexed Mexico, which remains a separate country. Also, the term Canada appears clear - it means whatever happened to be called Canada at the time - the province, the two provinces and the dominion. TFD (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As Dabbler says, though, there were later proposals for annexation of Canadian territory, and support in some form by some section of the American population certainly did not end. War Plan Red was a plan for exactly that, and there were serious proposals for it over the Alabama claims. Rwenonah (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The wording Dabbler removed was "End of support for military annexation of Canada." In the Alabama claims case, no suggestion was made for "military annexation" (i.e., brought about by armed invasion). War Plan Red was about the invasion and occupation, not the annexation of Canada, in the event of war with the U.K. The U.S. has invaded and occupied dozens of countries without annexing them. TFD (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may quote from War Plan Red; "The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON[Canada] and RED[Britain] to become states and territories of the BLUE[the U.S.] union upon the declaration of peace." Rwenonah (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

the War department did not handle diplomacy ("declaration of peace") which was the job of the State Dept, the White House & the Senate, none of which considered annexation at all. (nor did they consider war with Britain in 1920s) Rjensen (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

True. However, there was clearly support for military annexation within the War Department at least. Therefore, the war of 1812 did not end support for military annexation. Rwenonah (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not so. The job of the War Department planners was to plan for every possible war. In 2013 the Pentagon still does that line of work. They operated on the assumption a) the US and Britain were at war for some unspecified reason; b) the US goal was to win the war; c) overseas force projection (such as an invasion of England) was very iffy because the US Navy did not control the seas (it was the same size as the Royal Navy, and that became national policy with the Washington Treaty of 1922 with its 5-5-3 ratio). That left the invasion of Canada as the most feasible aggressive military option; it spent a lot of time looking at how to defend new York City & the Panama Canal. Canada at the same time (1920s) had its own war plan involving attacks on the USA to help the British war effort. At no time was the War department ever proposing any diplomatic initiative or threat--it ASSUMED war had been declared and that it would have to fight it. Rjensen (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 20th century war games and provisional plans really are not relevant. I just wanted to clarify that although the border in central Canada was essentally never again seriously challenged with military action, the same would not be true for what eventually became the whole length of the border. The use of the word Canada in the infobox statement could lead people to assume that the whole of modern day US_Canada border was never subjected to any military threat. It is not necessarily clear to me that annexation means the whole country, rather than just a part of Canada, especially in such a short statement. Dabbler (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you could argue this forever. As late as the Mexican-American war there were plans proposed for the British to colonize California. There are segments of the Canadian population that consider that the then "Northwest Territory" IE Ohio-et all, should have been Canadian territory. The US was certainly determined to spread to the pacific and poor Mexico lost all territory north of the Rio Grand. Despite Harrison's urging, there wasn't much concerted will to engage the UK again. The US had enough on its hands with Mexico and neither side wanted to face the consequences of another war with one another. The US has lost all merchant marine traffic in the last war. From the British side 3 years of war had accomplished absolutely nothing. America of 1848 was not the America of 1812 marshaling some 45,000 troops and defeating Mexico in a year. If another war broke out between the two nations it was not going to be the "Ah shit I am tired of this lets just go home" weird war of 1812. One British admiral stated that if another war broke out with America "We must lose Canada". Given the relative performance of the US in the Mexican-American war, and the British on the Crimean Campaign, I don't see the Empire doing more than destroying the US Merchant Marine again. I don't believe they would have one a single battle on US soil with the then state of the US Army and its current crop of officers at that time. Simply stated there was a hell of a lot to gain by keeping the peace and any war was going to be to the knife. Tirronan (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Historian's Views

So the first paragraph says, describing the majority view of historians, "Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812." The the third states, "A second minority view is that both the U.S. and Britain won the war—that is, both achieved their main objectives, while the Indians were the losing party" The second doesn't mention Canada and does mention Indians but neither view seems contradictory and seem to agree on the main points. Please let me know if this should be reworded or if there is a nuance I have overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.13.213 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

They are not contradictory because the actual objectives, such as ending the impressment of naturalized U.S. citizens ended, were achieved but the war had consequences beyond those objectives, notably better relations between the UK and its colonies that would become Canada and the U.S., while Indians lost any hope of independence that they had. And of course Canada had no objectives because it was a colony, and lacked the legal capacity to declare war or agree to a peace treaty. TFD (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It was an exceedingly strange war. America actually went to war expecting to lose and lose big which gives some idea of how offended the US was. American-British trade was large and growing so it made sense to go to war? British ships with decades of almost certain victory had to fear one on one combat with American warships? Almost certain victory over the Canada colonies is defeated by militia and Indian nations? Both sides at the end of three years of war get so sick of the outcomes they give up almost every demand, resulting in a everyone doing better economically? That my friend is one weird war.Tirronan (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Canada didn't really "win" the war. Partly, this is because it didn't exist at the time,and so could neither win nor lose. Also, though, the postwar economy of Canada went into a recession and immigration from the U.S. halted, possibly leading to the Rebellions of 1837. Which, ironically, led to republican-based government in the Canadas. So it could be said that the War of 1812 caused the exact thing many Canadians (at least in the Family Compact) had fought to avoid. Rwenonah (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Canada really existed before the 1867 name change (so says the textbooks of Canadian history--all of which cover the 1812 era). The 1837 rebellion were all defeated and republicanism & democracy suffered heavy blows, & were denounced by the elite as subversive Americanisms. Rjensen (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

School textbooks, as I may have mentioned before, are not usually a great source for history. They tend to suffer from a nationalistic and biased view of historical events, and often try to create nations where there are none. Canada before or even after 1867 did not exist as a nation, but as a group of colonies with no national feeling or reason to be linked together. The Rebellions of 1837 led to Lord Durham's report, in which he suggested responsible government, a suggestion which was implemented in 1849 with the creation of a legislative assembly. Rwenonah (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I was looking not at books for kids but at Canadian university textbooks that try to reflect the current consensus of scholars. Over the last 75 years (and longer) they cover "Canada" before 1867. Look at the very title of a representative advanced textbook: Pre-Confederation Canada: The Structure of Canadian History to 1867 by John L. Finlay (1990). He says the war of 1812 marked the "birth of a nation" (p 218) Rjensen (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Like most of history, Canada developed with time. From the initial colonies of two separate European powers, through being several colonies with little connection under the one European power, to the gradually developing mindset of colonies willing to become a federated entity with a "national" government as well as provincial ones. There was no single event that caused people to start thinking of Canada as one nation instead of a group of separate colonies. Not even 1867 Confederation brought that about. The War did move the colonies along the continuum to federation but only some of the way. Dabbler (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. But if the views are not inherently contradictory do you think it would be best to change the wording of, "A second minority view is" seeing as it might be a view that is accepted by the majority of historians as said in the first paragraph of the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.14.112 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dabbler, before 1812, (English) Canadians did not even think of themselves as citizens of the colonies. They were just English, Scots, Germans, Americans, Pennsylvanians etc., but also British subjects, who happened to reside in the the Canadian provinces. A "Canadian" was a French-speaking colonist. TFD (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and I never said that they did. After all even Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Prime minister of Federal Canada said in 1891 that he was born a British subject and would die a British subject. Canada and Canadians evolved slowly to acquire an individual national identity, some faster than others. Dabbler (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dating...

Would someone care to explain to me why this page — and many others like it — isn't set to military dating? Why it is, for instance, that almost all the World War I and II pages are set to day-month-year, but this is month-day-year? Magus732 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC) :see WP:MOS on datesIan Furst (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly, that not only doesn't answer my question, but it doesn't even set a standard to apply here... Magus732 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

was there any such thing as "military dating" in 1812?? Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't know, but it seems incongruous — not to mention absurd — to have two sets of standards for military pages... Magus732 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As a starting point, I don't agree that this is an article on the military. USS George Washington (CVN-73) is an article on the military; 7th Cavalry Regiment is an article on the military; General (United States) is an article on the military. This is an article about a major(?) event in world history which involved the military and other sectors. Clemenceau said, "war is too important to be left to the generals"; that is borne out by the content of the article. Of eight primary sections, only two concentrate on primarily military matters. The rest are politicians, diplomats and historians. Also, although the original post here doesn't mention it, the edits I reverted did not only change the date format, they also changed the English language variant from Canadian to American. There may be good reasons for either or both of these changes, but they definitely should have a full discussion and consensus to change before being unilaterally applied. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

24-hour time wasn't used in 1812; it wasn't widely adopted until the 1890s, therefore explaining its use in the First and Second World Wars. Articles about wars and battles prior to 1890 seem to use the 12-hour clock. Also, 24-hour time is used almost everywhere outside of North America, not just for the militaries of the U.S., Canada, and a couple of other countries.Rwenonah (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have seen a number of original Royal Navy documents dating from the period. They use both dating format of "29th July 1813" and "July 29th 1813" fairly equally, though the former seems to be used in more formal proclamations and certificates and other official documents whereas the latter seems to be more used for letters to the commanding officer reporting on actions etc.. For clock time I have only seen "Eight A.M." when it is given. What this adds to deciding which usage, I am uncertain! Dabbler (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how does an article describing an international conflict not count as a military page? *sigh* I give up... I don't care anymore if these pages look like crap... I mean, there's no uniformity between this and similar pages, but that doesn't matter, right? Magus732 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Magus732: An article about an international conflict is not necessarily exclusively about the military; it usually also describes things that affect civilians, such as civilian casualties, displacement, rationing, the economy, politics and so on. It is suitable for such an article to use date formats that are comfortable for civilian readers. Also, the date formats that are commonly used by the modern U.S. military were not universally used by the U.S. military of 1812. "Modern", as used in WP:DATE, is often taken to mean the time period from the mid-20th century to the present. Chris the speller ^yack 18:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Evacuating British wounded to Cornwall after the Battle of Chippawa

I found an account of the British wounded being evacuated to Cornwall after the Battle of Chippawa in Maria Hill, Daughter of the Regiment (which in turn is a direct quote from Kingsford's A History of Canada (1887)). Is there more information anywhere on the evacuation? Was it really to modern day Cornwall? The distances seem too great.

"She described the sufferings endured, the dragging and jolting of the wagons; the guard marching sometimes ankle deep in mud for weary days and nights around Burlington heights, and on, on, on along the shore of lake Ontario, until at last Cornwall was reached late at night"

The quote goes on from here to discuss the argument between officers about not being ready to receive the wounded. Any info is appreciated. Thanks. Ian Furst (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) This was likely Cornwall, Ontario. Rwenonah (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014

Under the section "Course of the War", Please add the following to the beginning of the third paragraph (starting with "On July 12, 1812, General William Hull..."):

On June 23rd, 1812, U.S. Commodore John Roger's squadron sighted a lone British frigate flying the white ensign. Abandoning his seach for a West Indian convoy, his flagship, U.S.S. President, exchanged the first shots of the war with H.M.S. Belvedera. [1] The encounter is described as follows: The USS President and the USS Congress both make sail and go after the Belvidera. The President was much faster and closes with the British frigate first, while the Congress follows. The British commander, Capt. Byron orders the Belvidera ready for battle. Rodgers fires the the first shot with the bow gun of the President himself. The President fires again from their main-deck guns. Three shot have all found their mark, killing or wounding nine men. This battle would have most likely ended with the next few shots fired except that the President's main-deck gun blew up when it fired for the second time, killing or wounding sixteen men. Rodgers himself was injured with a broken leg. The Belvidera opened fire with her stern guns killing or wounding six men. The President responded with a port broadside that did minor damage to the British frigate's rigging. The Belvidera continued to fire. The President moved close and fired her bow-chasers damaging the main top mast and cross-jack yard of the British ship. The crew of the British frigate worked hard and repaired the damage quickly. But the damage to the sails gave the Congress the time it needed to catch up. The Congress opened fire, but these shots splashed harmlessly into the ocean. The Belvidera changed coarse and escaped. Three days later it reached Halifax Harbour.

[1] Castlereagh and Adams:England and the United States 1812-1823, page 4, Bradford Perkins, University of California Press 1964. Sjohnson676 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: - please do not copy and paste from other websites for Wikipedia material as it violates the website's copyright policies. If the content is public domain, please notify me. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Native American not Indian

Last I checked, the Indian sub-continent played no part during the War of 1812. Indian is not an acceptable synonym of Native American and should not be used as such. Please change this, it is extremely racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.167.225 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

no we have been over this before. Leading scholars, publishers, historians and reference books use "Indian" (as do the Indians themselves). see for example the title of a recent major book by a Pulitzer prize winner: The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies by Alan Taylor (2011) Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request

I noticed that where this page mentions the Battle of Fort McHenry, it says that it wasn't really a battle. This seems overly biased (as this event was recognized as a battle by everyone except the writer.), and I (plus anyone who is American) would like it to be changed to something more factual. Also, troops WERE landed, as mentioned in the full article, just not to attack the walls. This just looks like a hasty job to me, needs a little polishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Imperial Emperor (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That off hand remark about it not being a battle has been bothering me too. During the bombardment Cochrane ordered four of his ships closer to the fort to improve their accuracy and came within range of the forts guns. Armistead's fire was so intense and accurate that the ships had to beat a hasty retreat. Since the shooting wasn't all just one way it's a battle. I get the above from John R. Elting's "Amateurs, To Arms" pg 238. Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.208.1 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor revision suggestion: Pacific Theater

The cruise of the Essex is found under "Atlantic Theater". Should it not be moved to a separate section "Pacific Theater"? I had some difficulty in finding it. I had to perform a find-in-page search. Ernest Ruger (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent lede edits

Recently, there has been some dispute over the specific content of the lede. I feel that the edits made by User:UnbiasedVictory are detracting from the content of the lede, and that, specifically, the mentions of Spanish involvement and the unsupported assertion that the US won multiple battles between the major three at the wars' end, are incorrect and should be discussed here.Rwenonah (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite correct. What battles between Plattsburgh, Baltimore and New Orleans? They are not named or mentioned in the text. The lead/lede should summarise the main body of the article. It is not the place to introduce unsourced novel arguments. HLGallon (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we're going to mention Plattsburgh, Baltimore and New Orleans by name, we should at least mention the fact that Britain repelled multiple invasions at the beginning of the war, since American defeats of British invasions and British defeats of American invasions have equal significance. Anyone disagree?Rwenonah (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested verb tense correction

As a reader, I found this sentence confusing because the verb "espouse" is in present tense: "Certain American politicians, like Richard Mentor Johnson blatantly espouse annexation."

To maintain consistency with the rest of the article, which is not written in historical present, I suggest that it be altered to read: "Certain American politicians, like Richard Mentor Johnson blatantly espoused annexation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloviscomet (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

East India Company involvement

I have removed recent edits concerning the East India Company's involvement in the war, for the simple reason that there was none. The East India Company contributed neither troops nor ships to active operations against the United States. True, East India Company merchant ships were attacked and sometimes captured by American naval vessels and privateers, but in this respect the Company was no more "involved" than any other British shipowner or merchant. To assert otherwise will require very specific and reliable sources.

The last action of the War was a scuffle between an American sloop of war and a smaller East India Company brig. This might deserve a sentence in passing, but does not merit the description of a battle, and certainly the wounded commander of the East Indiaman should not be placed among the commanders in the info. box. HLGallon (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

HLGallon has it exactly right. Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's involvement certainly has no place in the info box or lede. Rwenonah (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

American expansionism (for the 1000th time)

Recent edits by Rjensen to the section American expansionism are significantly changing the meaning of the section by suggesting that the opinions of the historians in question are different from what the section says (and deleting references under a false edit summary, but that's a separate issue). Having added most of the references in question, I was hoping he or another editor could specify which of these historians hold views differing from what the section says and, if so, where. Rwenonah (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to Rwenonah: If an editors wants to argue that "some historians say A,B,C" and then cites 1-2-3-4-5 we have three problems: all the historians have to explicitly agree on A, B and C in minimal depth (a half sentence will not suffice). When an editor mentions recent historians, he should not be citing Hacker and Pratt from the 1920s. And finally when 2 and 3 are the same authors, we don't need to duplicate them to puff up[ the footnotes. One solution is to do some quoting. So in the discussion of expansionism I quote Richard Johnson (1811) and Stagg (2012) (Stagg rejects A-B-C) and Nugent (he rejects A-B) and dropped duplicates. Nugent for example says annexation-as-bargaining-chip became a factor AFTER the war started, and Rwenonah cited it as if Nugent said it was a factor BEFORE the war. I recommend some explicit cites by Rwenonah, especially taking into consideration Stagg (2012) saying "a new generation of historians by the 1960s...repudiated the views of Hacker and Pratt." Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Now the sentence says "... was a cause of the war", which applies to all historians in the section. To take your quoting idea, Stagg "... 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". and Nugent: "Expansion was not the only American objective, and indeed not the immediate one. But it was an objective". Later on, in reference to the bargaining chip theory, he says "Whether the Americans would then give back Canada ... seems extremely unlikely." See here for his views on expansion: they seem quite clear, and demonstrate that many Americans wanted to annex Canada, making it a cause. Rwenonah (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Drop Nugent--he says goal came AFTER the war began--that is not cotroversial. Look at Nugent's actual words. He says: "Expansion was not the only American objective, and indeed not the immediate one. But it was an objective." Nugent says P 74 that AFTER the war began, " American forces tried to capture upper Canada and then, they hoped, Lower Canada, with the ultimate goal, as expressed by Jefferson, of conquering the rest of the present Atlantic Canada as well." Nugent p 75: "the idea was to invade and possibly annex Canada (or threaten to), so that at the very least the United States would hold Canada hostage until Britain gave in on impressment and neutral shipping rights." That is Nugent says annexation was "not be immediate" goal but was a bargaining chip after the war began. Nugent, Habits of Empire (2008) Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting him. He says in the same section "The American yearning to absorb Canada was long-standing ... in 1811-1812 it became part of a grand strategy." Or later "Why was annexation popular? ... The attraction of the land across the border in Canada was not so much to provide farms for settlers, but to produce and profitably sell grain, - either down an American-controlled St. Lawrence or to New York city." He specifically says at the beginning of the relevant chapter "Te.. War.. 0f 1812.. was one instance when aggression, combined with demography and diplomacy, did not gain new territory." clearly, if gaining territory was not an objective or cause of the war, why would he mention the war in the context of failed expansionism. Indeed, given that the entire chapter happens in a book about American expansionism, I'd say that, if he didn't believe expansionism to be a cause, he wouldn't mention it. Indeed, look at the full quote you omitted above. "The idea was to invade and possibly annex Canada (or threaten to), so that at the very least the United States would hold Canada hostage until Britain gave in on impressment and neutral shipping rights. Whether the Americans would then give back Canada ... seems extremely unlikely." Nugent's view seems to be that expansionism was supported by many elements in the U.S. before the war, became a goal during the war, but failed to happen due to lack of military success.Rwenonah (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nugent says the attraction of Canada was not that Americans would buy land but they would sell to Canadians ("not so much to provide farms for settlers, but to produce and profitably sell grain"). That's the NAFTA common-trade theme that appears every so often (1776, 1812, 1850s, rejected 1860s, proposed 1890-1910, rejected 1911, rejected in 1831, proposed in 1940s, enacted in NAFTA law 1990s). It certainly should be included but NOT in the context of Americans buying that land. Nugent says expansion became a factor after June 1812 when the war began. That's why Nugent talks about it & explains in detail the Madison wartime bargaining strategy. We want causes to come before the war starts, not after it starts. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation again. Setting aside the illogicity of Nugent's mentioning free trade in a section on expansion, he says the grain would be sold "down an American-controlled St. Lawrence canal." That means either the annexation of Quebec or a client state of some variety there. Moreover, he says this in a paragraph begun with the words "Why was annexation popular? Land hunger was part of it." He goes on to explain that while America had plenty of land, the hunger was for land to grow grain. The words "free trade" is never mention or implied. You're probably right - buying would not have been involved, more likely a Revolutionary-war style blatant taking of land from Loyalists - but this is speculation. Moreover, if certain elements within the U.S. supported annexation, that makes it a cause. Nugent mentions American border businessmen (p.g. 75) , a "long-standing yearning" (p.g. 75) and "the fascination of many Americans with absorbing Canada or extending the blessings of American-style liberty to the North Pole - or at least down the St. Lawrence - was nothing new." (p.g. 75). All explicitly showing a prewar desire by elements in the U.S. to annex Canada, in Nugent's book. Ergo, Nugent supports annexation as a prewar cause.Rwenonah (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit says, "a significant minority of historians believes that a desire to annex Canada was a cause of the war." That does not appear to be true any more. Your comment about taking land from loyalists does not reflect history either. Of the 76,000 inhabitants of Upper Canada, possibly as few as 4,000 were loyalists. The others were economic migrants from he U.S. There was potential for millions of settlers, hence no reason to expropriate land except as revenge. TFD (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"That does not appear to be true any more." . My point about Loyalists was that there was no need to buy land when it could easily be confiscated from people said to have supported Britain in the war - a procedure common after the conquest of a territory from a foreign power - but, again, is really irrelevant speculation. Rwenonah (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you multiple times that modern historians reject the notion of annexation as a cause of the war. It is tendentious to ask for sources in a sarcastic manner they have already been provided to you. And why did you begin this discussion thread which you say "again, is really irrelevant speculation.." TFD (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I suggest you reread the title of this discussion thread. That might help you realize this is about American expansionism, not the possible procedure undertaken should the U.S. have successfully occupied Canada. I think we'll agree, that topic is really irrelevant speculation. Interestingly, you were the one who brought it up a second time, despite the fact that I added that disclaimer the first time I mentioned the subject. As for your point about modern historians, I'm afraid the eight or so cited on the page might disagree with you. Sadly, their opinion counts for somewhat more than yours. To avoid repeating this discussion again, I recommend you reread that list in future before repeating this line of argument. Rwenonah (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Presumably what you mean is that some 'modern historians reject annexation as a cause of the war?' Certainly, in books that I have read, the goal of the War of 1812, for some sections of the US body politic at least, is very much presented as expansion, useful pretexts being used to start the war at a convenient time. The neutrality rules say that all the major viewpoints should be presented. Unless you can show that those authors who give expansion as a motivation for the war do not form a major viewpoint, you are not editing neutrally.     ←   ZScarpia   11:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The War of 1812 has a chapter explaining how historians have viewed the causes of the war (pp. 1 to 37.) [11] It says for example "Since the land-hunger thesis has not been sustained by recent investigations, it can be dismissed as of little substance," although it notes "Expansionism still has its advocates...." Incidentally I hope you are able to distinguish between my saying that most historians reject annexation as a cause of the war, and saying I do not believe annexation was a cause of the war. ZScarpia, perhaps you could present some of the books you have read that support that view of the war. TFD (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the considerable number of historians cited on the page disagree. I'd certainly say they make up a significant minority, and as they're all definitely published, reliable sources, there is no reason to discard them. Rwenonah (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Renowah is of the opinion that a significant minority of historians still believe in the expansionist theory. That is based entirely on his personal opinion and was explicitly rejected by Stagg in 2012: Stagg has examined at the fate of the expansionist theories proposed by Hacker and Pratt in the 1920s: Stagg says the expansionist' interpretation "debate became both interminable and insoluble. Consequently, a new generation of historians by the 1960s...repudiated the views of Hacker and Pratt. from Stagg (2012) pp 5-6. For 50 years historians have repudiated a view that is, however, still held by Rwenonah. Rjensen (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah, can you name one source you have provided that says most historians support the annexation theory? TFD (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, and even if I had one, it would be false, because most historians don't support the annexation theory. I've never said that. However, to give an example, Jerald Combs gives the two theories equal weight in his The History of American Foreign Policy: To 1920. Given that Stagg also supports the expansionism theory in one of his books (Mr. Madison's War, p.g. 4, I believe), I'm not sure what value can be placed on his assertions. Maybe he's schizophrenic :).Rwenonah (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The History of American Foreign Policy From 1920 is a high school or first year college textbook and therefore not really a good source for determining how historians view the war. Nonetheless, a reading of the text in "Madison and Great Britain: The War", pp. 50 ff., does not support your claims.[12] And as I pointed out to you last autumn, Stagg did not cite annexation as a motive for the war. I also quoted Tucker and others who said, "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."[13] An I imagine the "Canadian thesis" probably only exists in popular writing. TFD (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? I find the phrase "There were indeed some important expansionist factors in the decision or war in 1812. Frontiersmen had long coveted Canada and Florida." about as explicitly supportive of annexation as it gets. The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812, incidentally, itself supports annexation in a different section http://books.google.ca/books?id=VljA5QEI9_wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=encyclopedia+of+the+war+of+1812&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IeOpU-TEHIWRyASXsILYDw&ved=0CCUQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=causes&f=false. More schizophrenia, or at least a different encyclopedic contributor, it seems. Lastly, Stagg does, as I said above. Please don't deny things based solely on your own ideas when sources stand in contradiction. Rwenonah (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes really--you have to read the whole passage to see what the author is arguing. In this case Coombs says on the next page: "Yet it seems clear to most modern students of the War of 1812 that these expansionist factors were secondary to the maritime grievances of impressment kinship seizures. The United States had recently acquired Louisiana and still had much good unsettled land in the Northwest, so when hunger was not exceedingly strong in 1812.... Canada was more a good bargaining chip that an object of expansion." Coombs p 51 Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Secondary - yet present. i rest my case. Rwenonah (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Turn to p. 143, "Historiography of the War of 1812", where it explains that the annexation thesis was popular in the early to mid-twentieth century but is no longer treated seriously.[14] Note that just because historians hold a view on a topic does not mean it is the right one. It could be that annexation was the primary reason for the war, but we are stuck with what historians say. I have now provided two sources explaining the views of historians (rather than examples of individual historians explaining their own views.) So far you hve provided none. TFD (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've provided one, above, which places the two views on an equal footing. Indeed, your source could be interpreted to support the idea of a significant minority ("still has its champions, particularly north of the border"). I might also question its reliability, given that it supports annexation as cause of the war itself, here, thus contradicting its own seeming opinions. The dangers of multiple contributors, I suppose. Rwenonah (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Eustace Mullins

Eustace Mullins claims in a radio show interview "Curse of Canaan, the Demonology of History" with Bill Brumbaugh in Pro-Active News 2001 that US President (1801–1809) Thomas Jefferson and his his cohort and US Presidential successor (1809–1817) James Madison would not renew the bank charter for the First Bank of the United States. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngl2cf3Xdfs

The late 1700s European holders of the US debt were the backers of this central bank for which the charter was not renewed. Mullins claims that this was also a key reason why the war of 1812 was waged. After the 1812 war's conclusion James Madison supported a stronger national government and a strong military, as well as the national bank, which he had long opposed. Another US central bank was chartered 1816. Mullins states that for some time the Second Bank of the United States held the funds for the US government and when these funds were removed the bank experienced a run.

Does anyone know a transcript form of this interview and Mullin's original source for having made these claims so that this information can be inserted in the article? Oldspammer (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Mullins is a fringe writer--full of conspiracies--and not an expert on 1812 era. No historian says the Bank non-renewal was a factor in causing the war (they do say it made it much harder got Madison to finance the war and he realized his mistake.) Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please check your grammar-> it made it much harder got Madison to finance war <--> it made it much harder for Madison to finance war? Oldspammer (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at your keyboard; it was clear to me that Rjensen's left hand must have slipped to the right by one key ( f → g & r → t ), while his right hand was correctly clicking "o". Perils of touch-typing (and hasty proofreading or over-reliance on spell-check) rather than of grammar. Such slips usually produce nonsense words which are easier to notice, but sometimes the slips produce other real but unintended words. ¶ Anyway, this is an instance where someone should just make the necessary corrections to Rjensen's post (and probably delete this one and its predecessor.) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We normally do not add opinions about the war unless they have received substantial coverage. TFD (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

treaty of Ghent section one sided

the treaty of Ghent section only mentions the demands made by Britain but not that of the US at ghent. I request that this information be urgently replaced or merged with the current article as not putting this seems one sided and does not reveal the full truth.

At last in August 1814, peace discussions began in the neutral city of Ghent. Both sides began negotiations with realistic demands. The U.S. wanted an end to all British time practices it deemed objectionable and also demanded cessions of Canadian territory and guaranteed fishing rights off Newfoundland. Britain sought a neutral Indian buffer state in the American Northwest, and wanted to keep parts of Maine that had been captured to provide a land corridor to Quebec from the maritime colonies. After months of negotiations, against the background of changing military victories, defeats and losses, the parties finally realized that their nations wanted peace and there was no real reason to continue the war. Now each side was tired of the war. Export trade was all but paralyzed and after Napoleon fell in 1812 France was no longer an enemy of Britain, so the Royal Navy no longer needed to stop American shipments to France, and it no longer needed more seamen. The British were preoccupied in rebuilding Europe after the apparent final defeat of Napoleon. After British negotiators were urged by lord Liverpool and Wellington to offer the status quo to American diplomats which was their primary war aim The American negotiators agreed to return to the status quo ante bellum in the Treaty of Ghent signed on December 24, 1814 .

The British—but not the Americans—knew when they signed that a battle was imminent at New Orleans (it was fought on January 8, 1815). This treaty did not go into effect until it was formally ratified by both sides in February 1815.

The Treaty of Ghent failed to secure official British acknowledgment of American maritime rights, but in the century of peace among the naval powers from 1815 until World War I these rights were not seriously violated. The course of the war made irrelevant all of the issues over which the United States had fought, especially since the First Nations had been defeated and the Americans scored enough victories (especially at New Orleans) to satisfy honor and the sense of becoming fully independent from Britain. Imperialredcoat (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

the synopsis is incorrect. Better look at Remini, Henry Clay ch 7 or Bemis, JQ Adams vol 1 ch 10 for the British and American proposals. The US did NOT ask for any part of Canada and dropped the impressment issue. The main British demand was for an Indian buffer state. They also wanted control of the Great Lakes and access to the Mississippi River. The US immediately rejected the British demands. The British were stalling, says Bemis p 200, because they had two major military expeditions underway that they expected would split off New England from the rest of the union by the invasion of upstate New York, and that New Orleans would be captured & the Mississippi Valley opened to British occupation. Once these military campaigns succeeded Britain would be in a very powerful negotiating position. In the event, however, they both failed miserably. Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

but the US did ask for parts of Canada as I have shown you with more sources ,while they also asked for British maritime polices to be reversed at the conference. As a result this must be stated in the article. to show the truth to both sides. While the primary reason the British dropped their demands was due to pressure from British government such as Liverpool to reopen trade with US Imperialredcoat (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

the US asked for bits of Canada at Ghent??? better give me a quotation from a diplomatic history source. Bemis explicitly says the US team did not mention Canada to the British at Ghent [p 197]. The instructions from Washington had indeed mentioned Canada but the US team decided NOT to bring it up. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

check out this "the war of 1812 by carl benn pg 81 and 82" and the challenge by Andrew lambert pg 40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperialredcoat (talk • contribs) 10:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Who won?

Moved to the extensive discussion archive on this very question (begun in 2008):

Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox results section

We had a stable and to my mind satisfactory results section in the infobox which stated quite simply the really major outcomes of the war. Recently a number of other suggestions have been edited in and summarily removed or replaced in what is verging on edit warring. There has been no discussion here and that is what I propose we do. From my perspective: This point " * Britain retains in maritime polices at sea" is totally false. British maritime policy changed a lot between 1814 and 1815, mainly due to the end of the war with France but also that with the USA. No more blockade of French or American ports, no more restraint of trade with Europe. Secondly: "* British Navy stops impressment from American ships" is true but Britain stopped pressing men from all ships including its own. The need to press crews had ended when the war ended and this was not just due to the War of 1812 and any attempt to link the two as a direct result is ahistorical. Thirdly: "* British abandon efforts to control American frontier" is also untrue in the long term as is shown by British resistance to later American claims to encroach on what is now Canadian territory in British Columbia ("54 40 or Fight" for example). It may be argued that it is correct in the immediate aftermath of the war but that is included in the Status quo bullet. Dabbler (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1= agree 2, disagree. The US had casus bellum in Brits impressing from American ships and that in fact ended permanently even though the Brits still needed sailors. 3 disagree--statement is true. The British ended all efforts to set up an Indian buffer state in the US Midwest. As for British Columbia/Oregon issue 30 years later that was not based on a British effort to control the American frontier because it was an American effort to control the British frontier in Canada . The US took the aggressive role in that dispute (54-40-or-fight was an American slogan) Rjensen (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

2. I must ask you to substantiate your claim that Impressment was stopped because of the War of 1812, I agree that its stopping was coincident but the real reason for the stoppage was because the British Navy was downsized following the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The cessation of the Press was never mentioned in the Treaty of Ghent for example.

3. The statement was " British abandon efforts to control American frontier" That means to my simple mind that the British took no further interest in the American frontier which is manifestly untrue, they di take an interest and made strenuous attempts to discourage some American attempts to set the frontier where they wanted. How about the Pig War for a case of British "aggression" against the American frontier (albeit unsuccessful). Dabbler (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

on impressment: the Americans repeatedly told London that the war would continue as long as impressment continued. Impressment stopped and so the Americans decided their demand had been satisfied. London never said why it stopped--that's a matter of speculation. Was it needed after Trafalgar in 1805?? probably not. As for Oregon in 1840s, the agreement was there would be joint occupation and the Americans later rejected that and demanded all of Oregon & threatened war. The US forced the issue to block British expansion ('58-40 or fight' means British exclusion from the eastern Pacific). The pig "war" was about ownership of one little island situated on the boundary line, and the only one to die was the pig. Rjensen (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

all this has already been discussed in the who won 2014 section

1- Britain did keep its maritime polices at sea which the US wanted changed from the start. These polices saw Britain searching US ships in its blockade of Atlantic slave trade and blocking US trade with Germany in ww1. While Britain may not have impressed anymore ships after the Napoleonic wars the policy of impressment did remain.

2. Britain never wanted to control the American frontier. it only wanted an Indian buffer state to sponsor(not control) to help protect Canada incase of invasion (which they relised they did no longer need in 1814) . While Britain cared very little for this state in the first place as this was already falling apart before the war of 1812 .

However I think the following should be stated to give answers to the two main reasons of which the war was fought over

1)Britain maritime polices at sea remained 2)Canada remains a part of the British empire 3)impressment ends in practice as a result of the Napoleonic wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperialredcoat (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Press: What citable evidence is there that the British abandonement of the Press was due to the War of 1812. I agree that it was a cause of the war, but its abandonment was not because Britain felt that the only way to end the War was to stop the Press.

3. Maritime POLICIES not POLICES! While I agree that British view of the rights of a belligerent at war to blockade trade did not change, the implementation of those policies was dependent of the state of war between the various countries and so the policy started to change as a result of the ending of the Napoleonic Wars and later the conclusion of the Treaty of Ghent. The US Congress had already banned American import of slaves from Africa and transporting of slaves in American ships before the War of 1812, so there was no serious issue with the Royal Navy's campaign against the slave trade affecting American shipping.

Frontier: I could accept a result that said that Britain no longer actively supported a buffer state in the Mid West, but "no longer controlling the frontier" is too broad a wording. Dabbler (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

agree--let's say Brits dropped demand for a buffer state in Midwest (& drop "frontier") Rjensen (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

on impressment. Brits did not impress foreigners, only Britons. The issue for Americans was that Brits took American citizens, claiming a man who was Brit-born is ALWAYS a subject of the king. This is closely tied to the honor question--treating US in humiliating fashion. Anyone born in colonies before 1783 becomes a "british subject" by this rule & can be impressed if they catch him. This is what Brits stopped doing by 1814 or so (when was the last impressment??--I dunno) The US did not object to impressing sailors off British merchant ships, only off American merchant ships. Rjensen (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is false, it is fact that natural-born US citizens were impressed by the British. Though the letter of their policy may have claimed otherwise, as a practical matter the British simply did not make such a distinction when impressing. Natural-born US citizens David Martin, John Strachan, and William Ware were impressed, for example, and the British attacked the US to recapture them after they 'deserted'- see the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair article. --Noren (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Press was legally only entitled to take British "men who had used the sea". Nevertheless in the heat of the moment, landsmen were taken as well as seamen and so what actually happened does not necessarily reflect British law or British government policy. During the War of 1812, American seamen were not impressed, they were held as prisoners of war until exchanged or released on parole. They were allowed to volunteer to serve in the Royal Navy if the captain needed men and they were willing. I believe not a few did. After the War of 1812 ended, the press was not used as the Royal Navy was not needing to recruit more sailors but to pay off the ones it already had to save money. As a result, the end of the pressing of American seamen could be said to date from 1812, as after that date they were held as POWs instead. The legislation allowing for the press stayed on the books for a couple of decades before finally being repealed but it was not used. Dabbler (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dabbler if your stating that British maritime polices did change as a result of this war, could you stat which policies did please,because I cannot find any policies that did so. Imperialredcoat (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The policy of blockading the American coast and seizing American shipping.

The policy of stopping neutral ships sailing to European ports to ensure that they were not trading with the French.

The policy of pressing men to man the Navy.

The policy of shooting at American and French ships.

Now perhaps you have a different understanding of the word policy than I do if so please explain what you think remained unchanged.Dabbler (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dabbler here. The Brits also abandoned the policy of a naval race on the Great Lakes. This was finalized in the Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 which ended warship building on the Great Lakes & Lake Champlain. Rjensen (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Recently I have been involved in a dispute over two sections of the lede. Firstly, over the mention of initial British defensive success in that section which describes the progress of the war. Given that these victories ensured that the war would continue past 1812-1813, demonstrated that the conquest of the Canadas would not be as easy as expected by many Americans, spurred later American army reforms by Winfield Scott, and in general had a huge effect on the later events of the war, they seem deserving of at least a sentence, especially in a lede which expends 3 sentences on the three major American victories at the end of the war and two sentences on events in Florida.

Secondly, over how the militia units raised by Britain in the Canadas should be referred to. Every book on the war of 1812 refers to them (where distinction is necessary) as "Canadian" militia, or, more specifically, by the name of the area in which they were raised (e.g. York Volunteers). never once have I seen them referred to as "Provincial militia" ... until this article's lede. This seeming convention is followed by, to give a few of many sources, Alan Taylor's The Civil War of 1812, Pierre Berton's War of 1812 and the Heidlers' Encyclopedia of the War of 1812. Do any editors disagree with restoring the mention of the initial British successes and Canadian militia to the lede? Rwenonah (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah makes two good points. I agree re militia. Re his first point the problem is that the British victories in 1812-13 need to be put in the context he suggests (conquest would not be easy & US Army needed reform). Then they're ok. Rjensen (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree. I certainly dispute that the present version, without the sentence on British / Canadian victories in 1812/1813, is in any way an "agreed" version; for one editor to delete a sentence n times and other editors to restore it only n-1 times does not constitute agreement, still less concensus. With regard to militia nomenclature, some units (such as the Canadian Voltigeurs and Merritt's Troop) had "Provincial" in their full titles but this would rarely be used, except in formal correspondence. Both first-hand accounts and most second-hand sources refer to e.g. "the Voltigeurs". Militia would be referred to by County, or simply as "the militia[men]". (To be fair, one might very occasionally see "Provincial" where an eye-witness or an author needed to be absolutely clear about a unit's identity and had to use most of its full title, but this would be the exception rather than the rule.) HLGallon (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Between the two stated sources, please insert my own book as a source, 'How Britain Won the War of 1812: The Royal Navy's Blockades of the United States, 1812-1815', by Brian Arthur, published 2011, by The Boydell Press, Boydell & Brewer Ltd, PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk, IP12 3DF, UK, and of Boydell & Brewer Inc, 668, Mount Hope Avenue, Rochester New York 14620 USA.
Allen, Robert S (1996). "Chapter 5: Renewing the Chain of Friendship". His Majesty's Indian allies: British Indian policy in the defence of Canada, 1774–1815. Toronto: Dundurn Press. ISBN 1-55002-175-3.
{INSERT SOURCE HERE}
Asplin, Kevin (March 17, 2010). "Marines at Washington 1814". The Asplin Military History Resources.

After the sentence in the Blockade section: "However as additional ships were sent to North America in 1813, the Royal Navy was able to tighten the blockade and extend it, first to the coast south of Narragansett by November 1813 and to the entire American coast on May 31, 1814.", please add: "By the end of the war, the Royal Navy had proved so effective in confining US naval vessels to port that, of 1,613 British ships taken and destroyed by the Americans throughout the war and across the world, only 172 had fallen victim to United States Navy's 'public vessels', only 10.7% of the total". See page 163 of How Britain Won the War of 1812: the Royal Navy's Blockades of the United States, 1812-1815. Hibernia Warren (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the US sued for peace because the war was killing the South's cotton trade, as almost all their cotton was normally exported to mills in Bolton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.105 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 September 2014

the US did not "sue for peace," and it was New England that wanted peace not the South. The BRITISH mills needed the cotton and British business interests called for peace. Rjensen (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

British sailors ... were Irish

"Moreover, a great number of British sailors serving as naturalized Americans on U.S. ships were Irish." So what? At the time Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. -- PBS (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If sources say there is something important in the fact they were Irish, then that should be added. But otherwise it should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 October 2014‎

Suggestions for Additions to Results in America

I'd like to see an addition to the section as pertains to the aftermath section on America. The US mercantile fleet would not recover position as the premiere neutral carrier of choice. Between the losses to the RN and privateers, merchant marine hulls would not rise to previous levels for thirty years. American ships and trading would suffer being once again locked out by European trading cartels. I am not one to just stick something in without discussion so I would like a bit of discussion before any further action on my part.Tirronan (talk)

That all sounds like valuable additional information to me. Are there sources you know of that could be used?Rwenonah (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It takes a bit of digging but yes there is information available. The Napoleonic wars were over so that the need for a neutral to carry 3rd party trade was over. Given eight years of trade interruptions NE shippers and investors found other uses for their money and between 1815 and 1850 US manufacturing doubled. The US work force in manufacturing also doubled. The invention of the cotton gin meant that 40% of all exports were now cotton and would remain so until the American Civil War. I've stated this many times but the results of the War of 1812 far outweighed the silly "who won" issues we seem to get involved in. It might be interesting to check what happened to Canada and Britain afterwards as well. If similar results in the other two combatants resulted I'd have to argue that all three parties "won". Here is a link to check out. http://www.shmoop.com/market-revolution/economy.html

Speaking from general knowledge, I doubt Britain had any major effects that weren't (or aren't by sources) subsumed into the post-Napoleonic changes. Canada, insofar as I know, had an economic recession after the war, in some part resulting from the damage done by supporting years of war, which eventually led to the Rebellions of 1837. The idea that the war of 1812 kick-started the American industrial sector is certainly interesting, and probably more important than any other consequences I know of. Rwenonah (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)