Talk:War of 1812/Archive 4

Worldwide war at sea

If there were battles between US Navy ships and Royal Navy ships, does that not imply that the war was actually being fought in a particular location? So if there were battles between the USN and the RN in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans where the ships fought and sunk or captured each other then I believe that there was warfare going on. I think that having warfare on at least three widely spread out places in the owrld justified the term worldwide. I cannot understand your reasoning for deleting the term. Please respond here instead to justify deleting my term. Dabbler 01:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries are often insufficient for explaining rationale for edits. I was wrong to imply that there wasn't warfare going on in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. What I didn't say was that this information doesn't belong in the lead as it is not central to the story of the war. The lead is intended to be a succinct overview. "At sea" describes the war in general terms. Later in the body text, it would be most appropriate to talk about the operations on the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Sunray 06:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

British/Canadian Victory

Of course, wikipedia is systemically biased in favour of American propaganda history by virtue of the fact that the vast bulk of editors and contributors are American, and have wrought their patriotic doublethink on most military history subjects. However, it seems to me particularly brazen for Americans to claim as a "draw" (or sometimes, incredibly, a victory) a conflict in which none of their war aims were realised, and which hilariously resulted in the burning and sacking of the capital city of the USA. The attempt to invade Canada was wholly repulsed; the effort to assert US paramountcy in the Atlantic failed; the territorial integrity of the USA was not defended from counter-attack; Britain was not prevented from fighting two wars on two fronts simultaneously. However, American myth-history has inflated one successful but insignificant frigate duel into a story of military genius and triumph. Following the logic of the 'debate' surrounding the outcome of the War of 1812 one might as well claim that Vietnam was a "draw", if not a total victory! The fact of the matter is that the USA actually has a very limited history of military success, but because of American's massive insecurity complex about the cultural desert that is their 15-minute-long history they have to lie and exaggerate about every aspect of their past. Hence the endless hollywood movies portraying Brave American Heroes throwing out the tyrannical British (The Patriot), overthrowing slavery (Glory), winning WWII single-handedly (U-571, Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor etc etc.), winning Vietnam (Rambo), winning Somalia (Blackhawk down), and on and on and on. Whereas when you look at it, America has been involved in relatively few conflicts, and has succeeded in a minority of them. Here's American military history in ten easy steps: (1) The Revolutionary War was fought and won by the French, (2) The Civil War - well, that's against themselves so they couldn't really manage to lose, (3) WWI where contrary to American belief they played no role at all until the last 10 minutes of conflict and even then were armed entirely with French and British weapons, (4) WWII where America lost no lives at all and bore the lightest burden of fighting of any of the combatant nations after having cravenly held back from the war until it was already clear which side would win, (5) Korea, where a "victory" meant getting right back to where you started, (6) Vietnam, the only war that the Americans ever admit to "drawing", (7) Every intervention in Granada, Somalia, Kosovo, Iran-Hostage Crisis etc. etc. - all screwed up by hayseed incompetent hick American troops, (8) Gulf War I, great way to get all the indigenous anti-Hussein faction killed, (9) Afghanistan 2001 - most Americans actually think that this ineffectual assault was a victory!, (10) Iraq 2003-present - do I need to say any more? --Corinthian 13:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You purport to be against revisionist history while claiming that the US "lost no lives at all" in WWII. No, you don't need to say any more. --Noren 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A figure of speech, not literally. The USA casualties figure of approx 400,000 dead is insignificant compared to those of the USSR, Germany, Japan and Britain. The blood-price paid by the USA - the only beneficiary of ww2 - to gain total global predominance in the aftermath of the war was minimal. A result owing entirely to the cynical and repugnant policy of selfish american isolationism calculated to ensure maximum european casualties in order to clear the field for post-war hegemony. Yet americans have the temerity to assert that they "saved" europeans in a moral war. --Corinthian 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that I'm jumping into an old discussion here but I really must point out that the claim that the United States losses in World War Two were "insignificant" is a) false and b) doubly false when it's suggested that they were insignificant compared to those of Great Britain. American military losses in the Second World War exceed those of Great Britain, in spite of the fact that the United States fought for 29 months less than Britain. My source for this is the Oxford Companion to the Second World War. The claim that American isolationism was "calculated" to ensure maximum European casualties is also plainly false, and moreover many millions of Americans opposed isolationism. Finally, may I point out that the United States army went into sustained action in World War Two in mid-1942. By contrast, the Second World War was nearly four years old before the Canadian army went into sustained action in the summer of 1943 in Sicily, and half of the Canadian army never left Canada during WWII. Sometimes my fellow Canadians are appalling sanctimonious about such matters. Why they claim the War of 1812 as their own is beyond me. The only people in BNA in 1812 who thought of themselves as Canadians were French-speaking denizens of Upper Canada. --Ggbroad 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree Corinthian. I have spent hours on here trying to point out the Pro US spin that makes this a draw, rather than a loss. I'm not quite sure what the US has to do to acutally lose a war: an unsuccessful attempt at an invasion, getting their Capital burnt down, and then having the British army wander around the country at will unchecked and then leaving of its own accord obviously isn't enough.Deathlibrarian 03:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, if you bring in enough spurious factors, you can say anything. Timber, The Brits real goal of taking Maine, American indians, treaty signing, what Wellington said, The Amazing battle of New Orleans (!!)...if you bring in enough non core issues....You can add on as many factors as you want....and revise history to the point where you can say anything. If, however, you stick to what the US really, actually wanted to do....invade Canada..and what the British wanted to do...kick them out and teach them a lesson...guess what? The US lost!Deathlibrarian 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to Bash the U.S. can you please stick with the proper subject, this is not a discussion of U.S. wars, It is a discussion of the war of 1812. Your hatred of the U.S. should be in some other article. Oh and as for a U.S. loss. Mull this over. After a defeat in a War a country is suppose to lose infleunce in world affairs, ever since the War of 1812 the U.S. has gained infleunce in world affairs. Goal Achieved. Oh and by the way when you agree to a stalemate, by definition it is therefore a stalemate. --Kev62nesl 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please! Restarting hostilities is not the answer. This is a historical article, and it is not up to we editors to determine whether one side beat the other. Or not. --Jumbo 05:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to bash the US, I'm quite a fan, but I believe in representing history without spin doctoring.

Kev...more spurious factors that have nothing to do with the US loss of the war of 1812. The US gained influence in world affairs and became a great nation because of the cotton industry, trade, massive immigration, slave labour and the development of modern industry (amongst other things)......not because they lost a war in 1812 to the British! And BTW, the British never agreed to a stalemate, they signed a treaty to re establish the borders before the war, as the US, the UN and the Koreas did in The Korean War. This does not mean they lost the war...its completely different. You agree to a stalemate in chess...not after a war.211.28.215.155 10:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The result was "status quo ante bellum" If you want to use that instead of "stalemate" I can agree. But to declare it a victory for either side because some assumed "goals" (in which documents were these goals written down?) is not appropriate. Neither is the blatant and in some cases completely false abuse above. The Americans won not one insignificant frigate action but almost all the single-ship actions. Macedonian, lost, Guerriere lost, Java lost, Chesapeake lost.

There were no reparations paid by the losers to the victors, no territory ceded by the losers to the victors, both sides suffered considerable damage to life and property and if one had been a clear cut victor you can be damn sure that as in other wars of the time both reparations and/or territory would have been demanded. Both basically agreed to cease hostilities. A stalemate in many people's eyes because it wasn't worth fighting any longer with no certain belief in an eventual victory. Dabbler 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The treaty was "status quo ante bellum". This is different to saying who was the victor, and of course covers up the fact that the US lost the war. Whie achieving some naval successes, militarily, the US were beaten decisively, and had a belligerent British force roaming their countryside that they could not defeat before the end of the war.

As for the "eventual Victory"..the British did not need to to fight anymore because they had acheived theirs. They had defeated the invasion of Canada, burnt the US capital, removed the US threat. Threaty signed, victory achieved and mission accomplished, they ceased hostilities, hopped on their ships and went home.Deathlibrarian 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And which British army was roaming around American soil? The one we defeated at Baltimore? The one we defeated at New Orleans? The one we bloodied in the Niagara campaign? All the major British successes were in 1812 and 1814.

By 1814, we were holding our own against all the British armies. Yes, Washington was burned, but Baltimore, the real strategic objective of a Chesapeake campaign, held and General Ross was killed at North Point. And Chippawa and Fort Erie--even Lundy's Lane--and the naval victories on Champlain and Erie, guaranteed there would be no counter-invasion from the North. Once we controlled the Lakes, Wellington advised against attacks from Canada. The Americans won more battles than the Canadians believe they did. -- GABaker 0203 15 June 2006.

There is no need for ignorant personalization of this discussion by both sides. I am a Canadian who accepts the stalemate verdict and none of us were around at the time to claim WE won. For many of us our ancestors weren't living in either country at the time. This discussion is rather and silly and futile because hardly anyone is even attempting to see the other side's point of view, people are just shouting their own louder and more rudely. Its a stalemate, just like the war itself! Dabbler 03:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Which British army was roaming around American Soil? The British army, after suffering losses at New Orleans, but still quite large, defeated the US troops at Fort Boyer, and its fleet controlled Mobile bay. They were conisdering further offensive action when news that the treaty had been signed reached them by dispatch ship, so they went home. Certainly the US won some battles, but overall, the US militia's and small regular army performed poorly against the British Regulars and their indian allies. And with more regular troops arriving after the defeat of Napoleon, it wasn't going to get better.Deathlibrarian 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest for Pete's sake! This isn't a blog. Sunray 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Too right! May I suggest an outlet for this, because there are some good points being raised. Results of the War of 1812 is far more appropriate an article for this sort of discussion. This article is for the war itself, and while the outcome is important, it's not the focus of the article. Talking about who won/lost/drew is like squabbling over the will instead of writing the biography. --Jumbo 06:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To make the case that the war was any kind of British victory, you have to a) claim that the only significant American objective was the conquest of Canada, and that this objective was pursued in a consistent way; and b) claim that the only significant British goal was to defend Canada, and that the burning of Washington was something other than a successful raid (well, a partially successful raid, what with the whole "not taking Baltimore" part of it. I think both of these claims are highly dubious. Referring to the war as a "British victory" is highly POV and deeply dubious, and we shouldn't go on about it any more. john k 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares?

To say this was anything other than an embarrassing defeat for the US is totally ridiculous. All the debatable gains they were supposed to have made are of minor significance compared to the clear attempt at removing the British army from the North American continent, which subsequently failed with disasterous consequences for their own country.

Supposing the British had invaded the US and had finished the war the US army having torched London - would that be considered a "stalemate"? Absurd. We would never hear the end of it. Simon Horrocks

Absolutely. The British army weren't even driven from US soil, they left of their own accord when ordered too. I'm not quite sure what it takes for the US to actually lose a war. This article, until it reads "US loss of objective" is completely pro American biased.Deathlibrarian

It's nice to see sensible people like Dabbler emerge in a sea of ignorance that fills... just about everybody else in this. You guys aren't even listening to one another. How about having a civil debate instead of shouting hyperbole repeatedly?

Title

Leaving aside for a moment the great debate about who won, I'm somewhat bemused by the claim in the openning sentence that in Britain it is referred to as "the American War of 1812 to 1815". I'm British. I've never heard the war referred to by this title. Given that the war went on for 3 years, the title "The War of 1812" is rather an odd one, but as far as I know that's also what it's known as in the UK. Or I may just be a victim of "American propaganda history". Paul B 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

thats because it started in 1812 -gailim

Ihave always referredto it as the Warof 1812 - but "Anglo-American War of 1812" would probably bebetter - especially considering that it tends to be mixed up with Napoleons invasion of Russia in 1812 [Pagren]

Single-ship duels

I have removed from the section on "Effects on Great Britain", an explanation for the American victories in single-ship duels that these were, "mostly due to the superior size and build quality of the American ships"

In the case of the three big American frigates, this was probably the cause. In about a dozen clashes between smaller vessels (American sloops or brigs versus British ships of about the same size), the Americans won eight or nine victories to the British one. In most of these, the ships were almost the same tonnage and strength (in number and weight of guns). The Americans sometimes had a slightly larger crew, though not enough to confer any decisive advantage.

It is clear that size or construction played little part. Sometimes the British ships fought bravely, even desperately, but once or twice they flinched. In some battles, the British gunners managed to miss with almost every shot, while the American guns were devastatingly accurate.

The most probable cause is that the Americans had handpicked and experienced crews, while the Royal Navy was overstretched with the Napoleonic and American wars, and had to make do with a lower quality; sometimes made worse by lack of practice. Roosevelt, The Naval War of 1812, ISBN 0375754199, is probably the most authoritative work, though not very readable; C.S. Forester, The Age of Fighting Sail, ISBN 0939218062 draws largely on Roosevelt for data but is easier to read. HLGallon 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

POV in the info box

After a lot of discussion and editing we had setteld for quite a while on the formula for the origins as shown. Then it is unilaterally changed to state border disputes instead of American expansionism. If that is to be the case, then we should reword the the British side to American objections top pressing of British sailors from their ships and searching of American ships for banned trade with British enemies. The expansionism was well documented and is not in my opinion POV "Border disputes is massively POV in trying to exculpate the aggressor. The British were not disputing the border, the Americans were trying to erase it. Dabbler 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To Dabbler- Thanks for doing some digging! The second of your two references supports your claim, the first does not, so I'm removing it putting it in the External Links section. I can live with the article as it is now. But if you read the first of the two references, I can't see how you can conclude that American "expansionism" is a coequal cause with British violations. I'll try to address this later, when I have more time. For now, as I said, I can live with the article. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 21:35 (UTC)

From the first reference: "Earlier historians (in the 1920's) placed primary blame on territorial expansionism for causing the war. More recent studies discount its importance but we need to look at it.

The primary cause for the call to invade Canada was the obvious support the British in Canada were giving the Indians of the Northwest. The Americans did not miss that Canada was Britain's last foothold on the continent either. Southerners openly discussed annexing the Spanish claims in Florida because of Spain's alliance with Britain. As relations with Britain worsened the call for expansion both north and south increased in volume and frequency.20" (My emphasis). I don't claim that it was the primary cause but it was not negligible. Dabbler 22:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with you. I'm going to revert it. I was the user who put "American expansionism" in the infobox, and it certainly didn't warrant being turned into "border disputes" (yet again, I've already had to revert it once). I think this article may need protection to stop it becoming too pro-American (Hollywood History). NJW494 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult, but because of a misplaced quotation mark and a few other infelicities, I'm not sure what you're saying.

In any event, there are two issues here, as I see it: 1) the use of the term "expansionism," and 2) the question of British violations of American sovereignty (and related failures to adhere to the Treaty of Paris. The problem with "expansionism" is that it generally means a desire to expand militarily. There is nothing even approaching consensus about the extent to which the U.S. was expansionist in that sense during that period, but, far more importantly, there is no consensus that that is a significant cause of the War of 1812. As for British violations of American sovereignty, that is a fairly clear-cut case, as the rest of the article (to which no one here so far as objected) makes clear.

I think the way the article is now is extremely balanced. By the way, insulting references to "Hollywood History" are not likely to advance this discussion. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 15:41 (UTC)

Expansionism in this case meant the conquest of Canada, something that was a varifiable aim of the Americans in the War of 1812, and was certainly at least (if not more) important than the "violations of American sovereignty". Therefore the info box shows that both sides were to blame for the war, rather than making it seem like a "just war" from the American standpoint. Regards. NJW494 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, kiddo. You wrote: ".... certainly at least (if not more) important than the "violations of American sovereignty." where did you get that? --WikiFair1 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that, too. NJW494? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 21:33 (UTC)

Do not revert without allowing the discussion to continue a bit. That's considered bad behavior on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 15:41 (UTC)

In order to restore the neutrality of the article the changes had to be made. If someone wishes to argue for the use of the term "border disputes" let them do so. As things stand, the article has simply been restored to its previous state before it was altered by a pro-American source. Regards. NJW494 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so it was Cultural Freedom that reverted my original edits without discussion. kiddo, please try and practise what you preach. The edits had originally been made by some biased American fellow, and I'd altered them back to the way they were before. Regards. NJW494 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no neutrality in the article, as I see it. By the way, you need to go back further in the history of the article. It has been changed many times by USA-haters, and many times by "pro-American" sources. Please read what I wrote above. There are several issues involved here. Thanks in advance for your serious engagement in this matter. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 15:41 (UTC)

I don't understand what's so wrong with "border disputes". Let's look at part of the Treaty of Ghent. http://warof1812.casebook.org/documents/text.html?id=84dcb6162349899b798951bc3d6ede4c

"The said Commissioners shall have power to ascertain and determine the points above mentioned in conformity with the provisions of the said Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three, and shall cause the boundary aforesaid from the source of the River St Croix to the River Iroquois or Cataraquy to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration under their hands and seals certifying it to be the true Map of the said boundary; and particularizing the latitude and longitude of the North West Angle of Nova Scotia, of the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally and conclusively fixing the said boundary."

About half of the treaty is about the border. If the border was so clear before the war, why was all this necessary? Isn't it fair to say that the border was disputed?

If we have to use the word "expansionism", why don't we point fingers at the government in London trying to build an empire in North America? The local, democratically elected gov't had a much more legitimate claim than the Prince of Wales did.

Haber 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the border and dispute resolution mechanisms were so prominent is because the British were trying to prevent future American attempts to take over their North American colonies, the people of those territories controlled by the British fought vigorously to avoid being taken over much to the surprise of the foreign American government. Shouldn't have been so surprising, many of them had been refugees from the victorious rebels of an earlier war. Shouldn't a people's right to self determination count for anything? Dabbler 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So in your version of history, these self-determining "colonies" requested that the Royal Navy interdict American shipping, giving their aggressive neighbor an excuse to start a war. It was in their own self-interest that France be blockaded, so much so that they would voluntarily forgo trading with anyone but the UK. They preferred alliances with the Native Americans over their former friends and blood relatives to the south. Many of them, including the French-speakers, wanted a British win so badly that they would risk economic ruin and invasion of their homes. Then these selfless Canadians, many whose livelihoods depended on fishing, asked that fishing rights be given to the Americans, and that the border be defined in meticulous detail to prevent the Americans from annexing their entire country. Then they strike up a nearly 200 year friendship with their ruthless neighbor to the south, but accidentally rebel against their own beloved imperial system in 1837. What strange people. Haber 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You can draw all sorts of stupid conclusions if you want to but it won't be any closer to truth of what I believe. If you look at other entries here, you will see that I have fought just as hard to prevent POV-pushers from stating that it was a British-Canadian victory. I am interested in trying to get as close to the historical truth as possible not push my POV. Dabbler 11:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"If we have to use the word 'expansionism', why don't we point fingers at the government in London trying to build an empire in North America?" Agree completely. If the word "expansionism" is used to describe one of the causes of the war, then we also should mention British imperialism. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-13 07:31 (UTC)

Apart from British support for the Native people which has already been mentioned in the article, there is no evidence that British "imperialism" had any influence on the War Hawks' push for an expansion of the United States to incorporate those colonists who did not want to bepart of the US. Its this sort of nonsense that makes me despair of Wikipedia sometimes. POV-pushing will destroy this project. Dabbler 11:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. (Calling other people's views "nonsense" is unlikely to help ease the general strife that exists on WP; though I've engaged in similar mud-slinging in the past, I'll confess. Hard to resist sometimes.) About POV-pushing: from my perspective, most contributions from the British involve a grotesque white-washing of British colonial brutality. Take a look at some of the early versions of the article on the Mau Mau Rebellion, for example. In any event, I think Wikipedia was badly named. It's an experiment in mostly anarchic, global, collective blogging. As that, it's fascinating. As an encylopedia, it's so far a failure when it comes to most articles about history and politics. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-13 12:33 (UTC)

"You're POV-pushing! You're ruining Wikipedia!" ... bah. Haber 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansionism clearly applies to the US military expansion into Native Indian territory here, as well as trying to grab Canadian territory. British Colonialism may have been rife in other parts of the world (Mau,mau, India, Australia) but not in North America in the context of the War of 1812. There is a reason Native Americans fled to Canada...and its not because the Brits were evil expansionists! Its a shame that Expansionism at the expense of the Native Americans cannot be mentioned here, but that's what you get when you have a US bias in Wikipedia (coming from an Aussie).Deathlibrarian 07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whats all this talk of no side had a balance of anything, I may not be a mathematician, but 5000 British casulties to over 24,000 American casulties is a balance of something.

Shhhh dude...don't mention that the US lost 5 times as many troops as the brits. Someone may work out that the US lost the war! Deathlibrarian 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the "17 000 other deaths" in the info box refering to? deaths due to disease, weather and accedents while on campaingn? I think that statement needs some context and varification. Also, I porposed a rework of the info box below, does that help address some of the concerns at all? Mike McGregor (Can) 18:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate article?

I've just run across War of 1812 Campaigns, which is probably redundant with this article and to a lesser extent with Chronology of the War of 1812. I've marked it for merging, but someone here might want to take a look at it. Shimgray | talk | 10:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

infobox rework?

War of 1812
The Battle of Queenston Heights by James B. Dennis depicts the unsuccessful American landing on October 13, 1812.
Date June 4, 1812- Febuary 13, 1815 Location Eastern and Central North America, Gulf Coast, Atlantic and Pacific oceans Result status quo ante bellum
Belligerents
United States Indigenous peoples	United Kingdom Canadian colonial forces Indigenous peoples
Commanders and leaders
Andrew Jackson Winfield Scott	George Prevost †Tecumseh
Strength
U.S. Army: 35,800 Rangers: 3,049 Militia: 458,463 US Marines: ? US Navy: ? Indigenous peoples: ?	British and Provincial Regulars: 48,163 Militia: 4,000 Royal Naval and Marines: ? Provincial Marine: ? Indigenous peoples: 3,500
Casualties and losses
Killed: 2,260 Wounded: 4,505 Disease and other: ? Civilian: ?	Killed: ? Wounded: ? Disease and other: ? Civilian: ?
notes

I personally think the info box could use a rework for consistancy-sake. I put together a proposal here. the current version is at the top and my proposal is at the bottem. I've broken down the force strengths and casualties diffrently. for force strengths, I suggest using peak strengths for each category over the course of the war. please comment on the talk page there to suggest improvements and I'll bring it back here for approval or rejection. Mike McGregor (Can) 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a proposal for reorginizing the info box, what do folks think? If people could drop suggestions here on on the talk page here: User talk:Mike McGregor (Can)/1812 infobox. Mike McGregor (Can) 16:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone care if I replace the current infobox in the article with the one here? can anyone help fill in the figures?Mike McGregor (Can) 00:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be objections to the proposal, so I decided to "Be bold" and take that as a silent agreement. There is still info that needs to be plugged into the new box, and any help would be appreciated. If there are objections, the orriginal info box can easily be put back up... the code from the old box is here. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Stable versioning tested on this article.

Stable versioning is being tested on this article. This means that all editing will be made on War of 1812/development, and on a regular basis, good edits will be moved onto the consensus page. If you disagree with the current version, please let me know. Ral315 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian civilians?

Shouldn't the British deaths be built upon more? As it is now the US has numbers for how many died quite well detailed. For Britain though its just a basic number of killed and wounded making no distinction between civilian and military- to be neutral should there not be mention of the Canadian civilians killed since there is mention of the US citizens?--Josquius 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's part of what I'm hoping to address with the info box changes I've proposed. Is the break-down of casualties there more along the lines of what you'd liek to see? Mike McGregor (Can) 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Results info box

The "treaty of Ghent" is not standard for the result for the info box. Standard entries here are win or loose...or strategic victory, tactical loss etc. Putting the phrase "treaty of Ghent" here is meaninless to anyone trying to get a quick snapshot of the war of 1812 by looking at the infobox.

Threaty of Ghent is a treaty that ended the hostilities, signed by the US and the UK...its not a "result" as is the norm for the infobox. I vote it be taken out. Deathlibrarian 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, make it Status quo ante, which is substantially correct. Septentrionalis 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the consensus reached in the past until the latest Canada/USA pissing contest started. Should be Status quo ante bellum so it doesn't go to a disambiguation page. We should also have a note as a comment telling people to review the discussions on this talk page before they change it. Luigizanasi 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with either status quo ante bellum or Treaty of Ghent. Some moose-lovers out there don't like either. Unless you want to discuss round n+1, I say leave it the way it is. Haber 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what happens with status quo; since the Canadian argument is that this was a win for Britain, it may be acceptable as a statement of fact. Septentrionalis 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Status Quo seems to be a nice way of saying the US invasion didn't work!!!! I'm assuming you should make some reference to the US invasion being repulsed here? I think this should be changes to tactical loss US, as it did not achieve its objectives Deathlibrarian 08:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been made as many times as there have been editors to this article. On a level, I agree with you, but there is no chance of getting this changed and it is a battle that ought not to be fought again. Lord Bob 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

While this point has been debated, I think that putting something that is blatently misleading, just for the sake of avoiding an argument is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, or good historical practice. The Vulcan/logical part of my brain is saying this doesn't make any sense...Status Quo definitley is biased towards the US as it doesn't indicate the invasion of the US failed. Something like US invasion repulsed - Status Quo may be better. I say tactical loss for US....or put some dispute notice if a decision can't be come too. Deathlibrarian 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the Americans beat back British attempts at invasion in late 1814 at the Battle of Baltimore and the Battle of Plattsburgh (and at the irrelevant Battle of New Orleans). The main article should talk about them too. Status quo ante bellum is as good a description as any. Luigizanasi 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh...no. The Brits successfully invaded the US. The British army crossed the border, though they unsuccessfully attacked a number of towns, they stayed in the US and then only left of their own accord after they learnt that the treaty signed was in 1814. The last battle of the War of 1812, after Battle of New Orleans, was actually won by the British army The battle of Fort Bowyer. The British were being reinforced, and were preparing to move against Mobile, in Oklahoma when they learnt of peace and so sailed back to the UK. Of course, this is beside the point. The whole point of the war was that the US was trying to invade canada...they did not and the fact that we have "status quo" as a result doesn't represent the fact that the US invasion of Canada failed..and thus Canada is an independant country today :-) 211.28.215.155 09:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yeah...I'm pretty sure that we already did this discussion, but whatever. Look the reason that it is listed as Status Quo anti bellum is because that was the result. Niether side's boundary's changed from their boundary's prewar location. And as for the political results of the War, the British Empire was able to keep its control over Canada, and the United States was able to assert its sovernty. Both sides got what they wanted from the war. I dont see any gains or losses on either side that could justify a change from the current end result:Status quo anti bellum. Also does anyone else think that the picture in the box could be a lot better than the one that is featured, there are much better pictures to represent the war, and even to represent the battle of Queenstown Heights.Lucas(CA)

I think it's a pretty picture. It does say something about the poster's psyche that they're more interested in the unsuccessful American action than in anything positive. I'm going to change the caption. Haber 11:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

actually I just did a cut and past of the caption from the Battle of Queenston Heights article. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine if you just cut and pasted the picture and caption, but there are better images to encapsulate the war, and we should find one. Lucas(CA)

looking for info on Port Dover raid

Can any one point me towards some sources on the American Raid on Port Dover and surrounding area? Thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

POV and Operations on the Oceans

While generally I think this is a very good article and does well to avoid POV, I do think it slips up in the 'Operations on the Oceans' section. Rather a lot of it seems to be devoted to the (certainly impressive) American ship-to-ship victories (and, where the British win, in praising American courage or exculpating the loss - at one point an American privateer who is captured is praised for his 'audacity'). There's no indication that any of these fine victories were militarily or strategically significant. The purpose of a Navy is to defend the home coast, attack the enemy's and control the sea lanes. The US Navy failed in virtually every way. This may be understandable, given the numerical superiority of the RN, but it's still true. Concentrating on some individual victories is a bit like writing an article on the Western Front and devoting half of it to Arnhem and the Bulge. ~~TMR~~ 4 Sep. 2006

Have a go at changing it then. NJW494 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Who went First?? - The "Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, 1812" section

I noticed there seems to be some attempt to make out that the British Invaded the US First. William Hull invaded Canada on July 12, and the British took Fort Mackinack 5 days later. Both actions apparently before the formal declaration of war on July 18???? I have corrected the "Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, 1812" that seemed to indicate the Brits moving first. Also refering to "both sides invading" seems a bit ludicrous. The US force under William HUll was a true invasion force, the Brits taking a border fort with a small "scratch force" hardly counts as an invasion.Deathlibrarian 05:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some dates - but there was a sea battle even before that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Operations_on_the_oceans --JimWae 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC) also http://members.tripod.com/war1812/

Are you referring to a British force chasing the USS Chesapeake on July 17?. Thats after Hull invaded Canada. Deathlibrarian 10:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Belvidera - http://members.tripod.com/war1812/pvsb.html --JimWae 14:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The invasion of Fort Mackinac was a real invasion - the fact that only a few men were used was because only a few men were needed, not because Mackinac was a minor target. It was a significant holdfast in the Great Lakes, and the Americans spent no little effort trying to get it back. Its impact on the war was far more than Hull marching up and down Upper Canada without accomplishing anything until Brock whipped him at Detroit.

We should also note that July 1812 was not the modern world of telephone, Internet, and near-instant communication. Five days was not a long time. It took months for news of the Treaty of Ghent to get to the actual warzone, for instance (ask the participants of the Battle of New Orleans what that meant). Upper Canada was not a well-developed land with good roads and an efficient mail service. If the Americans invaded five days before the British, in the grand scheme of things it was effectively simultaneous. Certainly, the invasion of Mackinac occured independently, and if memory serves they didn't have any idea that Hull had crossed the border.

Finally, I'm somewhat at a loss as to how, as your edit summaries have stated, a simultaneous invasion expresses an American bias. I wasn't aware that initiative and being able to get a quick start in a war declared against you were negative traits these days. Lord Bob 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the *simltaneousness* I was referring to the fact that it had been said the British Invaded, as well as the US. 300 British guys taking a fort is not an invasion. An invasion implies an army subjugating or attempting to take control of a country. You can't do that with 300 British troops (unless they were Gurkhas of course). The obvious events that were happenning at the beginning of the war were the invasion attempts of the US into Canada, trying to justify/hide that by saying..."the British invaded as well" is a nice bit of spin doctoring, IMHO Deathlibrarian 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

An invasion is any armed incursion into hostile territory for the purpose of taking and holding that territory. The British clearly attacked Mackinac with the intention of taking and holding it, and did so. Compared to the Napoleonic Wars on the Continent with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, Hull's 2,500 or so men look punier than 300 men do to Hull. But we don't rename this the Minor border skirmish of 1812-15.

Nobody's trying to justify anything. Nobody's saying that the British taking Mackinac started the war or forced its continuation, and I don't see how that implication could possibly be drawn. I'm a Canadian myself, I differ with 99% of the contributors on this page in that I think Britain won the war (although I've long given up on waging that particular battle), and I'm still of the opinion that when 300 men attack a hostile island of strategic importance, take it, and hold it against attempts to get it back, those 300 men conducted an invasion of no less significance than Hull marching up and down without shooting at anybody. Lord Bob 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We could probably argue all day, depending on how you define "invasion". Certainly most military historians would not regard it as an invasion. Its basically about the size of the group making the incursion. 3 guys crossing the border is not an invasion of a country. Nor is 300. 2,500 could be.

Its also about intent. Whether Hull's troops actually did anything or not is not important. Hulls force was an invasion force, with the *intent* (combined with the other invading armies) to take Canada.The 300 Brit troops had no intent to invade the US, their objective was to take a fort. And Lord Bob, you can see from my other posts, I agree with you, its completely obvious the Brits did win the war of 1812. YOu'd think the British army wandering around the states unchallenged, attacking things at will and then leaving of their own accord would indicate that. And the fact the US acheived none of their objectives...in fact they lost Maine. But most American writers will never agree with you, and they write wikipedia. 203.35.150.226 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hull and Brock

I have added William Hull and Isaac Brock to the list of commanders due to their major roles in the fight for Upper Canada. While Hull's nationality is quite clear, I was unsure whether Brock should be listed as British or Canadian, seeing as like most Canadians then, he was both. I decided, however to mark him as Canadian because most of those he commanded were (or would later become) Canadians. --72.38.120.91 17:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Were there no colonial Canadian flags in that period which could better represent the Canadians?

Brock was British to the core. He didn't even particularly like Canada, was born on a Channel Island, and Canada was but one of many stops during his career. Of all the major generals, the closest one to Canadian was Drummond, because he actually was born Canadian, but even he is rather difficult to categorise.

That said, the whole idea of including lower-tier commanders like Hull and Brock isn't one I'm big on. Certainly, they had a major role during their day at the top, but so did Stephen Van Rensselaer and Roger Sheaffe, to name but two of many. I think we should stick to the old way of just having the top men (Prevost, Armstrong, Madison, et al.) on the table. Lord Bob 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the info box as simple as possible. Maybe Brock and Hull would be better represented in more campaign specific articles... Mike McGregor (Can) 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone have a reference for "American War of 1812 to 1815" being the UK English name for this war? I tried searching Google books to no avail, and a Google search largely brings up Wikipedia mirrors. - FrancisTyers · 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed seeing as no references forthcoming. - FrancisTyers · 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a page at The Royal Naval Museum that refers to it as "the American War of 1812". To quote, "... these limits were often ignored and the impressment of Americans into the British navy became one of the causes of the American War of 1812." It would appear that that nomenclature is currently used in British museums. --Noren 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One reference on one museum site does not make it a significant current usage. The National Maritime Museum web site, for example, has five references to the "War of 1812" and one to the "Anglo-American War of 1812". To me, the implication is that it is usually referred to as the War of 1812 but some writers think it needs disambiguation. Dabbler

That seems fair to me. I don't have a strong opinion on this, and am not trying to make a claim about how common this usage is. I found that reference while looking for impressment information and, well, a reference had been asked for and this seemed the place to mention it. That being said, the sentence quoted above would not appear to require disambiguation. --Noren 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)