Talk:War of 1812/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General comments

The entry says: "The scene of operations naturally divided into three sections:" but then has four entries in the list that follows. But then there are only three sections after the list. Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with this topic to make a contribution, but it should be fixed. Is it three or four? -Frecklefoot\

Not sure how to change this - under the Chesapeake campaign, link to Robert Ross should be highlighted red - no entry on that page for that person. -john

I fixed it by writing an article on the correct Robert Ross and redirecting the link. Rmhermen 14:53, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

This page is pretty neutral. I am impressed. In the United States it is taught that the Americans won the War of 1812 and in Canada it is taught in school that the British won the War of 1812. -stoltz

America won the War of 1812 and I can prove it: the Canadians had to keep Quebec. Charlie (Colorado) 15:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A Canadian friend of mine once told me that she was taught that the War of 1812 was fought to keep America from conquering Canada. -- Zoe

Well, that is basically what Britain and Canada were doing, right? They won in the sense that the American invasion was expelled. Whether American objectives were met is somewhat harder to assess, since the British were willing to end impressment before the war broke out. In most senses, the war was a draw. I think the article does a good job with this.

I agree. One aspect where the article does lack is in its mention of British or Canadian players in the war. There is no mention of people that are war heroes from the war in Canada today like Joseph Brant and Laura Secord, although it does mention Tecumseh, and Isaac Brock -stoltz

The article doesn't mention the standard British name for the war (the "British-American War", as "the War of 1812" doesn't distinguish it from the major war of that period - which may well have been linked to it). Also, it doesn't mention the tie-in between the economic sanctions that Napoleon was imposing on Britain through his Continental Policy, and those of the embargo imposed by the USA. Napoleon's measures were incomplete, but would have led to the Royal Navy becoming unseaworthy from lack of supplies which had traditionally come from the Baltic but by then were being second-sourced from North America. Knowingly or not, the embargo added to it (since it didn't affect strategic naval supplies for France, which had access to the Baltic). Together with a victory over Russia in 1812 to enforce the Continental Policy, the capture of Canada would have completed the sanctions and Napoleon would eventually have won. The thing is, Americans of the day probably did know all this - since Tom Paine had already noted Britain's dependence on naval materials in Common Sense. PML.

You can edit any article right now.

No. It doesn't help disambiguate, it obfuscates with too much detail in an inappropriate place. The "War of 1812" is unambiguous already

Not if you went through a decent 1960s British education. Consider that I faced the following: exposure to the name "British-American War", and then learning about the 1812 Overture with a bit of historical background for that. What is such a child's most likely expectation on first hearing the term "War of 1812"? PML.
- the Napoleonic Wars have other names.
As has the "War of 1812" - the "British-American War". Using only the former just increases the ambiguity to people with that background, unless some extra context is provided. It is only a US-centric education that doesn't have the latter term as well (and yes, it is quite possible for, say, Australian schools to get like that - Victoria, for instance, imported a job lot of US teachers a while back when there was the usual round of poor forward planning to get enough teachers trained.) PML.
The previous version was clearer, less wordy, and perfectly accurate. Tannin
I did have a largely British 1960s education, PML. (Thank God.) Not an American in sight. I'll leave it to you to judge how "decent" it was. I was always rather more interested in the indecent bits myself. Be that as it may, I have often come across the "War of 1812" name and only rarely the "British-American War" one. Given that I read a good deal of Napoleonic era stuff, and that as a rule I prefer to read British and Commonwealth historians to American ones (though by no means exclusively - good history is good history wherever it comes from), it seems surprising that the B-A War name is unfamliar to me, where the War of 1812 is immediately obvious. Tannin
War of 1812 is pretty much the standard name in Britain. I've never heard British-American war outside of this article. I guess the American/Canadian name took over as THE name as to Americans this war is important whilst to Britain its just one minor incident among many and is not even mentioned in schools --Josquius 17:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I second this (well, except, strangely enough, we did do it at school, was a while ago, though). I've never encountered the term "British-American War" in the UK, it's always the "War of 1812". Good piece, on the whole, though. Tarquin Binary 04:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In Canada, the war is always named "The War of 1812". In the United States, however, it is often called "The British-American War". It is not, as one anon editor seemed to think, ever referred to as "The Canadian-American War". Jkelly 04:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I live in Canada and have made the War of 1812 the centre of my MA and doctorate studies, so have added some comments throughtout various places. I will be happy to debate and discuss these in a reasonable manner and of course, using sources, whether primary or secondary. Most of my initial comments came from my MA thesis "The Vigilant Superintendence of the Entire District: The War of 1812 on the Upper St Lawrence," completed at the Royal Military Colleg of Canada; J. Mackay Hitsman's "Incredible War of 1812," various works by Donald E. Graves and Don Hickey; CO 42, which are the British Colonial Office Documents; Cruikshank's "Documentary History of the War of 1812": the US Naval Historical Centre's wonderful "The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History", three volumes and more to come; Bob Malcomson's "Lord of the Lakes" about the war on Lake Ontario and the Journal of the War of 1812. One point about the name of the war, it is also often referred to in British and early Canadian literature, as the "Second American War," with the "First American War" of course being the American War of Independence. Indeed, the massive fortification projects undertaken by the British between 1815 and 1871 were in preparation for what was anticipated as the "Third American War," but which of course never happened. Thank-you

I don't agree with Jkelly as stated above that the "War of 1812" is often called "The British-American War" in America. If it was true, wouldn't it be called "The American-British War" instead? I've often read in books and articles that the "War of 1812" in the United States is referred as "The First Forgotten War" and "The Second War of Independence". I have also read that in Britian during the "War of 1812" that the British referred to the war as the "The American War" or "The American Conflict". Huszar, 12 October 2005
Users accuse others of using the "British-American War" term, but nobody admits to it :-) Maybe we should take it out of the article, unless someone can find actual references somewhere.Luigizanasi 14:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, a source for "British-American War" is needed, or we should take it out.
Turning the clock back nearly a century, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entitled its article on the subject the "American War of 1812", and noted that the shorter "War of 1812" title was common. [1] They appear to have generally used the title "War of 1812" in related articles.[2] Napoleon's invasion of Russia was called the "Russian War of 1812". [3] Never apparently did they use the term "British-American War" by itself, although "British-American War of 1812" was apparently used once. [4]. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 14:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the "British-American War" term. If someone finds a reference, they can put it back in. Luigizanasi 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Despite PML's recent attempts to improve the wording, large parts of this article read like a primary school history book (an American primary school history book). I think we need to revisit at least the casus belli for both sides and probably the whole article eventually. Chadloder 01:44 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


--- i nead to find out wat america would hae been like if the war of 1812 never happened, anyone no where i can find info on this?? could ya please email any ideas to tkwouter@yahoo.com

Well, I think it's impossible to say how history would have turned out differently, so you could make up anything and argue that it is a plausible difference. Adam Bishop 17:11, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Potomac phase of Chesapeake campaign

In the Chesapeake campaign, the article begins with the burning of Federal buildings in Washington, but I suspect that this phase was preceded by the burning of buildings along the Potomac coast, and some concurrent (alleged ?) looting.

Battle of New Orleans

A lot of literature fails to mention that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the peace was already agreed to in Britain. The news of the peace simply had not reached North America yet. The point is that this battle was irrelevant to the outcome of the war. This article, and many other ones, imply that the battle had a major impact on the outcome, when in fact there was none.

David

Actually, since the treaty of Ghent had not been ratified by either Parliament or Congress, a British victory at New Orleans could have led to a repudiation of the treaty by either side.

GABaker

It could have, most certainly. But both sides were very weary of the conflict for many reasons; there just wasn't the will to fight any more and war debts were heavy for both nations. New Orleans and the southern campaign were for Britain a sideshow within a sideshow; the real war, in Europe against Napolean, was already over.

Perhaps stating it even simpler: If the US didn't renounce the Treaty of Ghent after such an impressive victory -- why would the Brits have done so, if positions were reversed? The British policy in the war was primarily about containment and curtailment of US aggression, not about conquest.

As David said, the Battle of New Orleans had no real impact on the ending of the war. Pretending it did seems (to me) to be more about shoring up one side of the "We won!" -- "No, we won!!" postwar conflict, than about the actual War of 1812.

Madmagic

And yet, the Battle is seen as the final land battle of the War. The final sea battle was the capture of the USS Essex in 1815 off the coast of Chile. The significance of the battle led to the rise of Andrew Jackson and the opening of the American Southwest as the main axis of American expansion.

GABaker

Well I think you hit on the key point here. Whether or not it was consequential to the British, it certainly had a huge impact on the American psyche. Recall that after the Revolutionary War, despite the Treaty of Paris, the British still kept garrisons in the Northwest, basically thumbing their nose at the notion that the U.S. territory actually extended to the region and effectively saying: "you want us out, make us leave!" Battle of New Orleans, as you point, effectively removed any taint of this coming out the war and established in the American mind, as least as I view it (and I'm not a historian), as having mastery over the region, not just formal title to it. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At the risk of being redundant (again ;) I'm going to restate David's original comments, since we seem to be wandering from them:

The point is that this battle was irrelevant to the outcome of the war. This article, and many other ones, imply that the battle had a major impact on the outcome, when in fact there was none.

The impact of the Battle of New Orleans on US expansion into Spanish territory in Florida or Texas or the southwest; or the affect on later US attitudes towards Britain; or on Andrew Jackson's following political career in the US -- all of those issues aren't really about the War of 1812.

The War of 1812 was already over when Jackson's US forces defeated the British army at New Orleans. That battle didn't restart the war; it was an unfortunate accident and (from the point of view of making any difference in the War of 1812) that battle was inconsequential.

I'm personally amenable to including discussion of the Battle of New Orleans under a "postwar developments" heading or a "consequences of the War" section, or "postwar Anglo-US relations" heading. But c'mon now, people... the battle happened when the peace treaty had already been signed. New Orleans didn't alter a single comma of the agreements already set down between Britain and the US in the peace treaty.

And therefore, as David wrote above -- the Battle of New Orleans had no impact on the outcome of the war. QED, eh? :)

Madmagic 02:12, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Can anyone point out something in this article that makes the Battle of New Orleans out to be of great significance. It is mentioned in just a few terse lines. I'm not sure why this is an issue here. I just don't see any claims being made in the article that the Battle had a great impact. Bkonrad | Talk 02:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Battle of New Orleans is the subject of a full paragraph (under "The Southwestern Campaign") plus a one-line paragraph, and half of a following para in the next section. While seven sentences is indeed only a few terse lines, when those lines occur in an article which barely mentions the battles of Queenston Heights or Lundy's Lane, or Tecumseh's impact or his brother The Prophet, or General Brock's battlefield death -- there is something of an un-natural stress on a battle which did affect subsequent US politics and wars with other nations, but had no real affect on the subject of the article: The War of 1812.

Before anyone rushes in to point out "well, go ahead and add to the above" I really would like to see some understanding and agreement expressed. New Orleans was an important battle in the political history and development of the United States. Understood. Agreed. But... it wasn't important in the War of 1812.

I restate the point (again...) because it seems there is a subtle but very persistant unwillingness for others to simply agree with this simple point. Much is made of New Orleans, in the article and in this discussion.

Yet that battle wasn't anywhere near as important to the progress and outcome of the War of 1812 as the battles mentioned immediately above, or Tecumseh, or Brock's large successes and tragic battlefield death -- or the Great Lakes arms race of shipbuilding on both sides, or the Great Lakes naval battles, or the many US army invasions of Canadian territory.

Personally, I'd like to abandon this discussion and have all of us make the entire article better -- by increasing the amount of content on War of 1812 battles which did make a real difference. :)

Tippecanoe, Chrysler?s Farm, Sackett's Harbour, Chippawa, or Plattsburg Bay, anyone? Fort York or Fort George or Fort Niagara? Surely we've all given the New Orleans battle more attention than it deserves, by now.

Madmagic 13:58, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this article would be best served by expanding on the other aspects of the war that were more consequential in terms of the war. Until I began working with WP, I had not known very much about any of the main campaigns -- a bit about some battles on Lake Erie (I grew up in the Cleveland area). But even I had often heard that the BONO was fought after the treaty had been signed. I just don't see that such a big deal is made about it in terms of its impact on the war. Almost all I can recall of it is 1) it happened after the treaty had been signed and 2) it was a big step in Jackson's political career. Perhpaps it is because those extra-martial aspects draw attention to the battle such that it overshadows the main campaigns. I agree that the battle is probably better known that many other battles in the war, but not that it is made out to have had some huge impact on the course of the war -- just that it is more well known. Bkonrad | Talk 17:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I really don't see what the problem is either. There is basically one sentence about the battle. Any less and it wouldn't be mentioned at all. -- Decumanus | Talk 17:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The battle of New Orleans completely changed the United States perspective on the War of 1812. I think that's relevant to the war itself. I'm looking for primary sources to back me up before I go around editing it though. Basically, it made it so that Americans didn't necessarily have to see the war as a total loss. It's certainly the battle contemporary Americans were proudest of. In otherwords, mention should probably be made of how national unity was practically non-existant during the war (re: hartford convention) up until the battle. --Shanoyu 09:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
One thing to note is that the war had not formally ended when the Battle of New Orleans took place. The treaty did not reach the United States until February 16, 1815, and had been signed by President Madison on Feburary 17, 1815.

Article II of the Treaty states

Immediately after the ratifications of this treaty by both parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the armies, squadrons, officers subjects and citizens of the two Powers to cease from all hostilities. And to prevent all causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes which may be taken at sea after the said ratifications of this treaty, it is reciprocally agreed

that all vessels and effects which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the said ratifications, upon all parts of the coast of North America, from the latitude of twenty-three degrees north to the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far eastward in the Atlantic Ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on each side: that the time shall be thirty days in all other parts of the Atlantic Ocean north of the equinoctial line or equator, and the same time for the British and Irish Channels, for the Gulf of Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies; forty days for the North Seas, for the Baltic, and for all parts of the Mediterranean; sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean south of the equator, as far as the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope; ninety days for every other part of the world south of the equator; and one hundred and twenty days for all other parts of the world, without exception.

Article XI stated:

This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this day, or sooner if practicable.

In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and have thereunto affixed our seals.

Done, in triplicate, at Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen.

Therefore, according to the terms of the Treaty, hostilites did not cease until the treaty was ratified and commanders such Pakenham and Jackson received orders from London and Washington respectively.

This is an important point. Hostilities could, and did continue, until news of the end of the war reached the combatants. The Battle of New Orleans therefore is part of the War. Had there been a transatlantic and transcontinental telegraph, then there would have been no Battle of New Orleans; I seem to recall that this was one of the selling points for the transatlantic cable.

As for the other battles; I have been researching them (desultorily, I admit) and intend to flesh out the details of these, in particular the Niagara Campaign.

GABaker

Since the War of 1812 is generally accepted as 'a draw', the Battle of New Orleans' significance -like the outcome of the war- depends on which side of the border you're from. From an American viewpoint, it was significant because of the points mentioned above. In the American psyche, the battle demonstrated American resolve in expanding their frontiers westward (and their willingness to defy foreign powers who might interfere with that progress). And, Jackson did benefit from his fame there on his journey to the White House.

In Canada, the Battle of New Orleans is mentioned in passing as a footnote. The Treaty of Ghent is generally the point which Canadians consider as the end of the war. The campaigns in Niagara held greater significance, since they are portrayed as defining the birth of a distinctly Canadian nationalism -- where they made a conscious break with their continental cousins and, in fact, took up arms against them. American forces had assumed -incorrectly- that the recent settlers in Upper Canada (many were from the US) would welcome them as liberators.

From a technical viewpoint, hostilities would not end until the treaty itself was ratified by Britain and the U.S. But the treaty was signed -- leaving the Battle of New Orleans as a final exclamation point to the conflict. I would have to agree that the battle had a greater impact on America's post-war evolution, than it did on the actual war. One could argue that the Monroe Doctrine was the legacy of lessons first learned in the War of 1812.

SCrews

This conversation is foolish. To state that the Battle of New Orleans had no effect on the War of 1812 could only be stated by persons wishing to view the war as an American defeat and a Canadian victory. The Battle of New Orleans had no effect on the Treaty of Ghent, this is true. But the Treaty of Ghent had no effect on anything, so it does not matter. The War of 1812 did have an effect on the world however, it had a postive effect, as stated previously, on Canadian Nationalism, as the the invasion of Canada was indeed repulsed and was an American failure. This lead the eventually emergence of the Canadian nation in gradual steps in 1867, 1931 and finally in full form in 1982. The War also had an effect on America and Europe. America proved that European powers could not dictate terms of trade to America. America proved that it could defeat regular armies of the most powerful nation of the world, without aid from other European powers. This was the first step onto the world stage, that began the process whereby the United States of America is now the world's sole Superpower. (and no, I did not vote for W, nor do I believe that the war in Iraq was justified, Afganistan yes, Irag no.)The section on the Battle of New Orleans is now update dproperly. TJD 08/30/05

The British commander-in-chief, Vice-Admiral Cochrane, did not believe the Peace Treaty applied to Louisiana, and thus not to New Orleans, for he appears to have maintained, along with many of the British, that the Louisiana purchase was invalid as the promised payment had not been completed. As this would mean that Louisiana was not legally part of the United States and not within the coverage of the Treaty of Ghent, Cochrane prepared during January and February for a renewed assault on New Orleans, that is to say that he did not consider the events of January 8th as final in any respect. Possibly the British government shared his view, but public opinion would not countenance renewal or continuation of the war, and Cochrane was ordered to bring the British forces home, leaving unfinished business. The British peace commissioners in Ghent knew before signing the treaty that New Orleans was about to be attacked, and signed only in the confident expectation that New Orleans would be captured and Louisiana liberated from its allegedly illicit occupation by the United States. If the flat-bottomed landing craft that Cochrane had ordered, and with which he had famous success in landing a very much greater number of troops in Egypt, had been delivered as expected, the outcome would very likely have been as the British peace commissioners believed would be the case -- it is unlikely that Jackson's skills could have been employed so successfully if the landing of the British troops had not been so delayed. So, in Cochrane's view, the fighting was not over after the Battle of New Orleans, nor after he had official news of the Peace, but only when he was told to stop. And as for the outcome or result of the war, it's worth noting that another reason for Cochrane wishing to remain in the Gulf was to assist the Indians in getting what the Treaty promised them; but the United States reneged on the relevant part of the Treaty. Neither the British nor the Americans won the war, but the Indians lost the war. JW 9 Nov 2005

Jefferson Quote

I've added the following line in the first paragraph under the heading of Operations on the Great Lakes and Canadian Border:

Former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson dismissively referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching."

The quotation from Jefferson seems to sum initial US attitudes to the conflict and has become a fairly well-known phrase in Canada. I don't mean to be dismissive of U.S. views, but AFAIK it's an accurate quote. Comments welcome.

Madmagic 07:32, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

Pierre Berton tells me Jefferson's actual quote was "a mere matter of marching" but I'm not going to edit that since I've heard it both ways and who knows which one is correct? Not me! But the fact that he said it makes me think that it's just a fine thing to include. Lord Bob 21:34, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Well you could say '...conquest of Canada as a "matter of marching."' to cover both possibilities? McKay 08:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actual quote is from Jefferson's letter to W. Duane on Aug 8, 1812, "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." So it's not Canada he thought to be a cakewalk, just Quebec.

--

Until 1791 and the Constitutional Act, the colony of Quebec included what are now Ontario and Quebec. The Act divided Quebec into Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec). The Jefferson quote could be interpreted any number of ways, depending on whether Jefferson was only referring to taking only Quebec/Lower Canada, or also referring to the fall of British North America ie Canada as in both 'Canadas'. The capture of Quebec/Lower Canada likely would have led to the fall of British North America, as it was the seat of colonial gov't. If Jefferson were referring to Quebec in that sense, he would be correct in assuming that once Quebec was taken, the Americans could effectively control both Upper and Lower Canada and proceed to Halifax.

Upper and Lower Canada together were known as the Canadas (which had all been Quebec until the Act), so Jefferson could have also meant that both Canadas would be an easy conquest if Quebec ie Lower Canada, seat of British colonial rule, fell. It would seem that he felt the invasion of Quebec would be easier than facing Halifax, a major port for the Royal Navy.

SCrews 05:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Native Americans

I was under the strong impression that the natives, especially Tecumseh, played an important role in this war. However they are barely mentioned, and the name Tecumseh first appears to announce his death. This surely needs correcting?

I agree, though Gawd knows I'm not well-enough aware of the native contribution, outside of what they did in a few battles, to write it myself. Still, if somebody out there knows their Native North American history, now is a good time. Lord Bob 00:42, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
I have a couple of texts on Tecumseh; I'll check them as soon as I am free to do so. The Native Americans did play a major role as a British ally, and defeating them was one of the accomplishments of Jackson in the Southwestern Theater of the war. GABaker
I have added an image of First Nations veterans of the war to the article. Jkelly 02:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if Wikipedia has a house style on this, but we Native Americans tend to call ourselves "Indians". If you really want to be PC, refer to the nations involved, ie, the Iroquois Nation -- since the Iroquois, we Choctaw, and the Navaho are about as different as Lapps, Italians, and Turks. Charlie (Colorado) 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I found that this article isn't very objective.

It seems that the author of this article was biased in some fashion towards the British, given that at almost every possible opportunity, something derisive is said about the Americans involved in this conflict.

I don't care to hear the author's opinion of the "detestable" behavior of the American soldiers or how the British army (comprised of loyalists) "did excellent service." It would, in my opinion, make the article more valuable for historical research, if some of the grossly editorial comments were removed and were replaced by simple facts, not subjective opinions on how the author felt each side conducted themselves.

There isn't one author. I've been working on trying to get the American POV through without offending the Canadian and British POVs. I do think you might be right; let the deeds do the talking.--GABaker

There's a big part of the problem: "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica." 1911! That explains the archaic style and expressions like "behaved detestably" and "ignorant of a soldier's business".

This page suggests that responsible government was an American idea yet the article itself on responsible government and other Canadian historical sources say it was a British idea. What is the conflict? SD6-Agent 01:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you've just zeroed in on how the War of 1812 symbolized a crossroads for both American and Canadian identities. The war has been described as America's second revolution, because it confirmed its independence by resisting the bullying tactics (naval impressment, etc.) of their former European master. From their point of view, why wouldn't the citizens of the Canadas want to be 'liberated' from the British rule?

If not for the invasion of Canada, the sizable American settler population in Upper Canada may well have agreed with their southern neighbours. While the war helped define a new Canadian nationalism, it also encouraged the upper classes in York and Quebec to close ranks, thus stifling the evolution of responsible government in Canada until the rebellions of 1837-38. Canada wanted a change from the colonial government of the past, but at the same time, it didn't want an American version of it.

If there is a conflict, it's in the 'form' of responsible government that Canada wanted (in the British tradition) versus the American system of government which might have been imported had the US taken Upper Canada, and which some rebels in 1837 had advocated (unsuccessfully).

SCrews

SCrews: Your observations are most apt. A couple of points:

  • Could you please date your comments? It makes it easier to keep track. The easiest way to do this is to sign with four tildes ( ~ ) and the date will automatically be added alongside your IP number.
  • You might wish to consider creating a new account. There are several benefits to doing this, including being able to watch articles you are interested in. Sunray 20:15, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Thank you!! This site makes a lot of sense!! Thank you.

I believe the issue was not responsible government, which was the main demand in the 1837 rebellions, but a movement away from democracy and republicanism, especially by the Upper and Lower Canadian elites. The fact that responsible government, rather than democracy, became the issue before and after the 1837 rebellion is most likely a result of the anti-American sentiment generated by the war of 1812. 05:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, responsible government refers to (among other things) the idea that a government must be dissolved when it fails a confidence vote, including any major financial vote. The U.S. doesn't use that approach, at least not at the national level — congressional and presidential elections are held on a regular schedule. David 05:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

See the Responsible government article. I think it means more, that governments have to be responsible to the legislature, so that cabinet ministers need to be in parliament to report on their activities and to answer questions, as opposed to being cronies of the head of state/government. (BTW the May 19th comments were mine, I hadn't figured out the fourl tilde thing.) Luigizanasi 05:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, but note that the ability of Parliament to bring down the government with a confidence vote is way that it holds cabinet responsible. That's why most people refer to that particular point when they're talking about reponsible government — it's the aspect that distinguishes it most sharply from other forms of representational government (though note that in the U.S. cabinet secretaries do not sit in congress, either), and the aspect most visible to the public (since it results in unpredicatable, and sometimes, frequent elections). David 14:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is an American?

I'm not a native English speaker. In my mother tongue an American is someone born in America, the same way as a European is someone born in Europe.

So, when the article says that at that time 1/3 of Canadians were born in America I understood that the other third were born in Europe, Asia, Africa...

But after reading it other time I've realised what they meant is that they were born in the USA!

This problem is just mine, and American is an unambiguous term in English, or it would be better to clarify it?

In English, 'American' almost always refers to somebody born in the United States. You're not the first non-native English speaker to have this problem and I'm sure you won't be the last. Lord Bob 02:04, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Right, and even more specifically in the United States and Canada, "American" refers only to people from the United States. Some Canadians would be offended if you called them Ameicans :) Adam Bishop 09:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The term "American" is a common enough term, but outside of the US, few people use the term "America" to refer to the country. In Canada and elsewhere in the English-speaking world, "America" is generally refered to as the "United States" (for obvious reasons). --136.159.208.30 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My experience having lived my whole life in either Canada or Australia tells me that if I were to refer to a United States-er as an American, 999 out of 1,000 times the person will know what I mean. Your mileage may vary. Lord Bob 03:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said, the term "American" is not at issue; rather it is the term "America." Of course, Canadians and others use the term informally, but in most journals, newspapers, etc., the country is referred to as the United States. This is because it is generally recognized (outside the US) that the term "America" refers (formally) to a continent.

Incidentally, there is something inherently chauvinistic about referring to one's country by the same name others use to refer to an entire continent. But given that we're speaking of, well, Americans, I'm only surprised they haven't started referring to their country as "the Earth."

Remember that ours (US) is the only country on the two continents to use the word "America" in our name. Thus, we are called "Americans" by the world, and our country is called "America" , "United States" "The U.S." "U.S.A." interchangably. For example, throughout the middle east, the country would be called America ("Amreki"). More generally, I see this topic of "calling the USA and it's people America/Americans" come up now and then, and I noticed a trend: I've found that 9 out of 10 times, it's an American who is complaining about the issue. I tried to explain the whole issue to a person from Argentina, and I'm afraid they were only mildly interested. Dxco 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I told Sir John A. Macdonald that we should have called it British North America. Dabbler 17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

("Wait a minute, Statue of Liberty--that was our planet! You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!") --136.159.209.127 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough, 'America' = 'United States' isn't very good. I just find 'American' a lot easier than, say, 'United Stateser', but then, I'm inconsistent. Lord Bob 18:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

request clarification

I find this matterial confusing:

After the British defeated the French in the French and Indian War in 1763, the British began to settle Westward into North America.
...
First the colonies, then the newly-formed United States turned Eastward as the American Revolution began (1776) and ended (1783).

The British turned west but the Americans were focused on the East? I thought that Americans were focused on westward expansion which is one reason they split from Britian.

If this "Eastward" is correct, then wasn't this American shift in attention only temporary? Surely attention would have turned westward again by 1812. If so, then how is this temporary "Eastward turn" even relevant to 1812? If not, I need some more convincing that something kept America from the westward expansion from 1783 through 1812.

Did 1812 change the American character that caused all US states, including the coastal states, to shift their focus from "Eastward" (or European?) concerns to westward expansion? I thought westward expansion was always a key focus.

WpZurp 21:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That outline is a little terse and somewhat misleading. First, in 1763, the British sought to prevent colonists from expanding westward (see Royal Proclamation of 1763). This was one contributing factor leading up to the American Revolution. Second, the "eastward" focus of the colonies, I think refers to the revolutionary war period, where the focus of attention was on preserving the established areas in the east, and western expansion was something of a secondary concern during the war. An unrelated point, what is with the wierd capitalization of directions here. That looks totally nonstandard. older≠wiser 22:25, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

the entire "War of 1812 Terminology" should be deleted

Specifically, I'm talking about material at War of 1812 Terminology.

We have this section on the War Hawks and this section on The Embargo Act of 1807 and this section on the Impressment of American Soldiers.

Also, Tecumseh should not be defined as a "term". He's a guy, not a term. Then Tecumseh and impressment have their own Wikipedia articles. And these terms are already hyperlinked. So why have this little cruddy "terminology" section when there are full, complete articles? And all Wikipedia articles have a nice, terse summary at the start. Let's keep material collected together where one fix covers the encyclopedia rather than scattering redundant information all around.

Anyway, I'm asking for a justification for keeping this section. If I don't get a good reason, then in one week I'll just delete this section.

Plus, come to think of it, these sections should be in their own Wikipedia articles: 

 12 The Embargo Act of 1807
 13 War Hawks
 15 The Battle of the Thames

All these short, choppy sections is starting to make this (otherwise excellent) article look pretty junky. I'd almost suspect trolling but I can't indentify anything in the history.

WpZurp 04:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I figured somebody might have been going somewhere when I first saw it, but now I look again and no, it really doesn't seem to be doing much. Lord Bob 07:38, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Agree. I'd go further, and suggest everything from the "Impressment of American Sailors" section on down (inclusive of that section) should be either incorporated to the main body of the article and/or removed, as appropriate. The article used to end with the current section 10, "Effects of the War of 1812 on post-war North America: who won?" and that seems an appropriate place to end, to me.
On perhaps a larger issue for discussion, IMO the entire article needs a rewrite or major editing to bring it into some kind of stylistic consistency and coherence. There's a lot of good information in it, but it suffers from disorganization. Cheers, Madmagic 05:08, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a problem with articles that began as a 1911 Britanica article: the convoluted, archaic prose sticks out like a sore thumb. Hopefully someone will roll up their sleeves and have a go at a much-needed revision to this mess.--Kevin Myers 19:01, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Some comments

I tried cleaning up the section about the naval war, to make it a little more readable, but it is still very American-centric. It doesn't really explain the strategy of either side, or give any descriptions of the actions of the British.

The remainder of the article could do with a cleanup and creation of a proper structure, and I agree wholeheartedly with the removal of the glossary.

3mta3 11:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the naval section needs more work. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the Lake Erie operations, but one gets the impression that the Americans dominated the Great Lakes, when that was not the case. US successes on Lake Erie were chastened by their failure to dominate Lake Ontario. Both countries now share the Great Lakes, it was far from an unqualified American success.

I've cleaned up the intro to 'Operations on the Great Lakes', and tried to give it a more balanced tone -- but the rest of the section needs work.

SCrews 21:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I completed a cleanup of the Great Lakes and Niagara campaigns sections. It should now have a more balanced tone, and recognizes that Lake Ontario remained under British control, due to British naval superiority and the continued possession of Kingston, and thus an uninterrupted link to Quebec and the St. Lawrence.

SCrews 05:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV Check

There seems to be no reason for the addition of the POV check tag at the top of this article. There is certainly no new indication of any POV problem on this page and the person inserting it has no other contributions to Wikipedia. What is the process for removing an unwarranted POV check tag? Dabbler 04:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. Jkelly 05:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed. That particular tag requires the author to put a justification on the talk page. See Wikipedia:POV check for instructions. Luigizanasi 05:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

First declared war????

User:Sesmith added this line to the article: It was the first time that the United States had declared war on another nation. However, First Barbary War states that It was the first war declared under the United States Constitution. Both statements cannot be true, unless there is some qualification about whether the Barbary States of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli were "nations" at the time of the war. older≠wiser 13:34, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think the statement that was in First Barbary War is misleading, and have removed it. Tripoli declared war on the U.S., but the U.S. did not declare war [5]. older≠wiser 14:38, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

The article formerly contained a link to "United Kingdom" which is the root article about the UK. Although "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is the correct title at the time of the war, it doesn't shed any light on the war and is much less complete than the root article. I think that the link should be to "United Kingdom." I propose we change it back to link to the main UK article. Comments? Sunray 03:47, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Neither the United Kingdom nor the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland contain anything specific in relation to the War of 1812. However, insofar as the latter was the actual political entity at the time, it makes sense to me that the link should go there -- especially since the link you added was a piped link [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]]. Also the infobox link was also a piped link, but this time [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]], so it did not make sense to have them linking to two different articles, neither of which was what the text of the link said it was. If you want to change them all to UK, I don't care all that much, though I do think it is preferable to link to the correct historical entity. older≠wiser 16:42, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Causes of the war

I've removed some of the bullets from the article. The article is overly long (over 32 kilobytes) and needs trimming. These points are background to the war, perhaps, but we are not writing a book. It is a stretch to call them "causes" and we would need a whole lot more explanation to tie them in properly.

If anyone thinks they should be back in the article, please explain. We will have to come up with other strategies for shortening the article. Sunray 07:23, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

If I'd read through the entire article recently enough to remember they were there, I'd probably have removed them myself. The Native issues influenced the Natives joining the war, in my opinion, but it didn't have much to do with the war itself starting. Lord Bob 22:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the causes section to be more balanced, including American expansionism as well as British violations of U.S. sovereignty. I put the material on expansionism first, since it's shorter, but did not substantially alter any of the existing material on the U.S. grievances against Britain. This is a touchy topic, since in Canada, school children learn only about the expansionism, and in the U.S., school children learn only about the grievances; I think it's critical to keep the intro balanced, without letting it tip to either country's prevailing POV. David 12:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
You've made a good start. I've been meaning to get around to adding parts about U.S. expansionism for some time—a major omission—but never have. However, the statement that the war was caused in part by "a desire by some Americans to expand their territory and population by conquering the Great Britain's Canadian colonies" is an oversimplification, if not an inaccuracy. It's much more complicated than that. As Canadian historian Reginald Stuart relates, Americans at the time knew very little of Canada, and didn't think there was much up there worth annexing, much less fighting for, but many became willing to invade in order to try to throw those meddling British colonial rulers out of North America. The desire to conquer Canada was not a cause of the war, but it was a goal of some advocates of the war, and many Americans increasingly hoped it would be an outcome of the war. I've written about this briefly here, with references. I'll make adjustments to this article to reflect the complexity of the issue, which among historians has been subject of debate for nearly a century. The issue of annexing American Indian land—by far a greater cause of the war than annexing Canada (some American revisionist historians believe it's the primary cause of the war)—is also currently inadequately addressed in the article.
The problem is, to deal with this tangled issue properly takes some space, and this section is getting long. Should we create an article "Origins of the War of 1812" for in-depth coverage as some other articles do, and create a short, 2-3 paragraph summary here? --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 13:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. Why can no wars start for simple reasons? Sigh. Stupid wars, being so overly complicated nearly two hundred years after the fact. Lord Bob 14:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've created a new article Causes of the War of 1812, and moved most of the section there. Unfortunately, I didn't see the comment suggesting the name "Origins of the War of 1812" until afterwards. That sounds fine as well, and I have no objection to renaming. David 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I've moved it to the less problematic title. Based on my readings, I believe you've introduced a couple of errors into both articles. Also, I'm interested in your observations about how the war is treated differently in textbooks in both Canada and the United States. (I suspect that this information is correct, but I hope this is not original research on your part.) Please share your sources for any information you've added. Thanks. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 02:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I put a needs cleanup notice in the article due to word-by-word duplication in various sections, sections with very awkward, difficult to understand, or incorrect grammar and diction, as well as underdeveloped analysis sections. --68.225.251.152 02:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit: The "Motives of the UK" is particulary bad, seeming both POV and unencyclopedic. --68.225.251.152 02:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good that you've added the clean-up notice. I agree with your comments. "The Motives of the UK" section should perhaps be retitled, rewritten and moved to a new section titled "Effects of the War of 1812 on Postwar UK", parallel to similar sections for the U.S. and Canada. The section has been removed, perhaps for the better—there was little content that could be redeemed. Sunray
68.225.251.152: Are you going to acquire a user name? There are a number of benefits when working on an article. Sunray 18:40, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
The other thing that struck me was that several sections are also dealt with in articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. These include:
  • Battle of Lake Erie
  • Treaty of Ghent
  • Battle of New Orleans
I think it would be a good idea to move anything not already covered in the main article and just do a short summary in this article.

I agree. The article American Revolutionary War has been condensed by describing important battles in only one or two sentences. Even the ultimate Battle of Yorktown gets only two sentences, I believe. Readers who want more can click on the battle to get more details. The same approach should be tried here. --Kevin Myers 23:41, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Other concerns:
  1. An example of underdeveloped analysis is the role of native americans/first nations in the war.
  2. Much of the article needs a good edit. For example "Operations on the Ocean" is choppy and overly chatty, and needs streamlining. Edit continuing. Sunray 19:26, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  3. Something that I think is perhaps implied (though not mentioned explicitly) up to this point in the clean-up process is the length of the article. It is currently around 36 KB and the suggested maximum size for articles is 32 KB. While that is not a hard and fast rule, it is a good rule of thumb. So perhaps we could aim to condense it somewhat in our clean-up process. Sunray 16:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
It's now down to 31 KB and reads very well, IMO. Excellent work! Sunray 06:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Status quo?

The article says the war ended in a status quo. This is sort of true however the war ending in a return to status quo was what the British wanted. America invaded Canada with the intention of conquering it, Britain managed to defend against this attack. If the war had ended there it would be a British victory- Britain had successfully defended Canada from American invasion. They did not want the war- it was forced upon them. As it is though the war continued and everything after this further added to the British victory- not only did we stop Canada being conquered but we messed up quite a bit of the United States in the process. We had defeats in the US however this does not matter. Our sole aim in the war was for the Americans to leave us alone and let us concentrate on the war in Europe. So the status quo was returned after the end of the war-yes. This means there was no winner? - No. In a war with a white peace the defender is the winner especially where they did not wish for war at all in the first place. --Josquius 20:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like your original analysis. Interesting? Yes. Relevant to Wikipedia? No.
That is, unless you can cite a reputable, published source that concurs with your view. When it comes to history articles, we are not historians at Wikipedia -- we report what professional historians have written about a subject. Anything else is original research, and will be reverted. Continuing to add contested information without citing a source is vandalism. --Kevin Myers July 2, 2005 01:48 (UTC)

A source is any book on the war. Read up on the period and they all pretty much agree that Britain just wanted the war over ASAP with no losses- they vary in saying how much Britain wanted to gain though it is reall only the very poor quality American nationalist sources that say Britain wanted to conquer the US. For a source I suppose you could also go into broader military histories and philosophies. I'm sure many of them would agree that to be an attacker and to gain nothing is to loose. -Josquius

You still have not managed to cite a single source to support your edit that stated that the War of 1812 was a "narrow British victory". Your vague talk of "any book" and "poor quality American nationalist sources" without naming specific works leads me to believe that you're not familiar with the historiography of the war. Please keep in mind that it is a Wikipedia guideline to cite your sources.
I have, as it happens, "read up on the period" just a bit, as a glance at my edit history might reveal to the curious. (I'm particularly happy with "Tecumseh's War", since it covers important aspects probably not covered anywhere else on the Internet, though it still needs a few additions.) My reading tells me that the traditional view of the war ending status quo ante bellum ignores the fate of American Indians. If the war was a zero sum game, the Americans won since the Indians lost so much in the southern and western theatres of the war. (The Indians lost in part because they were—once again—used and tossed aside by their British allies, who often considered native interests expendable when the shooting stopped.) I can cite numerous sources for this, which I will do when I add the forthcoming "Effects of the war on American Indians" section. --Kevin Myers 16:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Since the Treaty of Ghent restored status quo ante bellum, that's how the war's ending should be reported. From the point of view of the U.S., the northern front was a stalemate, but the Western and southern fronts (which are often overlooked in Canada) victories. GABaker--20:47 12 Jul 2005

Manpower numbers

My book says Britain had 300,000 men in its army, 150,000 men and 125 ships of the line at the beginning of the war. And it says the US regular Army only had 11,000 men, and the US Navy had 20 ships and 4,000 men. Quite different from the numbers in the table of this article. --Kenyon 18:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the root cause of the discrepancy is the fact that both militaries continued to build up forces throughout, and so the manpower figure depends on the year and who you include in the count. For instance, according to Hickey, the US Regular Army was of this size:
1812: <12,000 men
1813: 30,000
1814: 40,000
1815: 45,000
Total: 57,000 -- by which he means, I believe, the total number of individuals who served at some point in the US Regular Army, though never all at the same time.
Great Britain had a similar force buildup, as they gradually detached men from Europe to serve in North America. So, which number goes in the table? The number of men at the start? The end? The most in uniform at any time? The total manpower available, whether in Europe or not? All of the above? How much info do we want on the table? A detailed breakdown, or just naked (and perhaps in this context meaningless) strength numbers like in this table? --Kevin Myers 17:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I see, good explanation, thanks. --Kenyon 18:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

I consider the term "kidnap" to describe impressment to be somewhat POV in view of the prevailing British attitude of the time that "Born British, always British" and no American citizenship certificate could be used to avoid your duty to King and Country. I wish to put that into the article without being reverted by an anonymous editor. Does anyone else agree that the reverting was uncalled for? Dabbler 15:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not worried about it enough to revert anything, impressed sailors were hauled away without their consent and with a pretty iffy legal basis in the land of their residence (the United States). I'd call that kidnapping, myself. Lord Bob 20:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the unfairness of impressment, but if you use the term kidnapping to describe it, you might need to use the term to describe conscription as well. David 05:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • State both sides: England considered them still citizens of UK (was this long-standing policy?), USA considered it kidnapping. And in some cases, mistakes were made (source?) --JimWae 20:56, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Dabbler suggests that Americans "impressed" into the Royal Navy were British subjects who took up American citizenship. This is misleading, and in most part, incorrect. Many of these "impressed" were American citizens born in America and taken off American ships. Indeed, such was the case with three of the four sailors carried off in the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair. The sailor carried off by HMS Guerriere that led to the Little Belt Affair was also a native American. The reversion to "kidnapping", especially concerning native Americans being forced to serve in a foreign navy, is entirely called for. The British sailors certainly had different ways of deciding what to do with these "impressed" Americans. Before engaging with the USS Constitution, Captain Tom Dacres allowed the Americans on his HMS Guerriere to retire into the hold. The captain of the Macedonian, however, ordered his Americans to stay at their stations during the engagement with the USS United States. Some died fighting their own countrymen against their will.

Dabbler also wishes note the superiority of the 44-gun American frigates to the 38-gun British frigates they faced. Certainly, it's valid to note the superiority in American armament in the single frigate-to-frigate actions that occured. However, I think he places his comment in a inappropriate location. The first paragraph in the Operations on the Ocean was intended to illustrate the gross inequities between the respective Navies at the start of the war, and not to touch upon the naval engagements (or their outcome) that occured.

Especially early in the war, captains of British 38-gun frigates actively sought single-ship patrols to engage the American 44-gun frigates in one-on-one engagements, for the honour and glory of the Royal Navy. They fully believed their ship and seamanship to be equal to or better than the 44's.

The whole point about the frigates is that frigates are designed to outsail ships of the line as is often demonstrated during the war. There was no shame or dishonour in a frigate captain avoiding combat with a ship of the line, in fact it was his duty to do so and the American frigates only chose to fight other frigates. In terms of the warfare of the day ships of the line usually only fought other ships of the line in set piece fleet actions so their only real function on the North American station was to convey troops for actions against the American land forces or to bombard shore positions. So the comparison of American frigates with ships of the line is irrelevant. The Royal Navy was far stronger than the US Navy overall once it got its act together, but the US Navy was generally better equipped for the combat operations it undertook.
As for the word "kidnapping", it is inherently POV in this case, whether our anonymous editor likes it or not, what the British captains did was generally legal under British law. Documentation was very rough and ready in those days and there were no birth certificates available for seamen to show the press gang. If a man had "used the sea" and being a sailor aboard a ship on the ocean confirmed that, then he was available to volunteer or be impressed under British law. There were many foreign citizens serving in the Navy of the time and some were Americans, it is also documented that many British born sailors either legally naturalised as Americans (which was not recognised by the British authorities if they found them at sea) or illegally obtained American documentation from sympathetic American consuls in foreign ports. Thirdly, there were a number of British officers who did not consider the United States to be a legitimate entity, despite any treaties to the contrary. They considered Americans to be rebellious Britons and therefore liable for impressment regardless of documentation. Dabbler 12:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm the one who originally used the word "kidnapping" in the article. I used it instead of "press", thinking that some readers might not be clear about what "press" meant. As far as I know, my sources (listed in references) do not use the word "kidnap", so it cannot be defended along those lines. The current wording which defines "press" in its first usage ('taken against their will') does the trick for me.
About citizenship, Hickey's book says: "Some British seamen acquired certificates by lying about their place of birth, while others simply bought them from obliging Americans. For a dollar, it was said, a British subject could become an American citizen." He does not indicate how many (if any) of the 6,000 American citizens kidnapped ... er... pressed into the Navy were these "dollar citizens." --Kevin Myers 14:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Dabbler states that any who "used the sea" were liable to be pressed. Officialy at that time, no foreigners could be pressed unless they had married a British woman, or had worked on a British vessel for at least two years. Of the three Americans taken off the Chesapeake, one was white, one was black, and one was Native American. Commentary of the time state none could remotely be mistaken for a British subject.
As for the fling that some British officers did not regard the United States as legitimate, that it quite irrelevant. The Government of the Great Britain at the time recognized the United States as a separate nation.
That the Royal Navy ignored their own regulations, impressing foreigners when they knew they were not British subjects, is a known fact. That they did so quite openly at a time of a terrible war with Napoleon is a known fact. That the United States, in defending their own citizens (especially their native-born citizens) from a foreign force, found this to be intolerable is justified. Dabbler's argument provides no justification for the impressment of native-born Americans into the Royal Navy. The impressment of native-born Americans led to war.
I did not justify or defend the practice or attempt to justify the illegal impressment of American citizens, I just objected to the use of the word kidnap and tried to provide some context which included the historical facts that some British seamen used forged documents and some British captains did not accept the United States legitimacy regardless of the British government's position and thirdly, the three Americans who were taken off the Chesapeake had served in the Royal Navy and were considered deserters. A foreigner who serves in the US Navy today and then deserts would be just as liable to being "kidnapped" and tried fro desertion if found by the US Navy. But I don't hold grudges over a couple of centuries and along forgotten war, so I don't see why you are getting so excited over it, but as a Canadian, I am glad that we won it! (That was what we foreigners call a joke by the way) Dabbler 23:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am also a Canadian, and proud of it without apologies. I don't feel excited; however, I did want to "impress" upon you the anger the American public felt over the issue at the time. Peace.


Legal questions of kidnapping apart, the concept of "citizenship" was little known at the time, and was not understood by the British bureaucracy. In their perspective, a person was a subject of the monarch, not (in any formal terms) a citizen of the state. 9 Nov 2005 JW

548,600 vs. 76,000

An unknown anonymous contributor (222.228.14.220) adjusted the manpower numbers of the Americans from 548,600 to...76,000. Now, this is the first time I've ever heard the argument that the Americans were actually outnumbered in the North American theatre, so I was going to revert. But I accept that I'm Canadian and generally pro-Canadian, so I have my biases. So I wanted to open it up. What does everybody think of these numbers? At the very least, I think that (either way) the difference between 'volunteers' and 'militia' needs to be straightened up. Lord Bob July 1, 2005 01:56 (UTC)

I reverted Mr. Anonymous. The U.S. numbers given in the table are from Hickey's book, likely the best U.S. academic history on the war. I'm not crazy about putting numbers in the tables in the first place, but if we're going to put numbers in them, we can't just make them up. I understand what Anonymous getting at -- the numbers can paint a misleading picture (most US militia would never leave their own state, which perhaps should be stated in the table). The heading in the table used to be called "Strength" rather than "Manpower", which was even more misleading, since the number of warm bodies is not synonymous with "strength." And of course the British numbers are incomplete and thus too low, but that's probably not a reason to delete the US numbers. Someone needs to come up with a good academic source that gives a breakdown on British manpower.
"Volunteers" (Hickey's term BTW) are semi-professional troops in between militia and regulars. Shorter enlistments than regulars, but unlike militia could not refuse to leave their home state. The States made extensive use of this category of troops in colonial days and the Revolution, though they're often confused with regulars and militia. --Kevin Myers July 1, 2005 02:54 (UTC)

We had that many and still got our asses handed to us by 99,500 soldiers? Wow, saying we sucked is an understatement. o_O--Kross July 2, 2005 01:52 (UTC)

That sort of distortion (458,000 defeated by 99,500) is precisely what I was attempting to avoid. I have edited the manpower table to reflect the disposition of the militia during the war- i.e. not taking part in the fighting


Not a Stalemate

The American's objective was to capture a good deal of British shoil in Canada. They were repelled into their own country, and pushed the British back to the line. The invasion failed, the defense was victorious. How is that a stalemate.

In 1814, the British devised a plan to invade the United States. This was also a failure. It was a stalemate - neither side achieved a decisive victory. That this was probably a better result for the British than for the Americans does not mean that it was a British victory. john k 04:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well said John and thanks to Kevin for holding fast on this. I've never heard of a "slight victory." It sounds similar to the old saw of being "a little bit pregnant." I agree with Kevin that you will need a source. Otherwise it is just your opinion, and completely unencyclopedic. Sunray 05:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the overall war was a British victory, but I don't believe it strongly enough to stay up nights fretting (or engaging in revert wars, for that matter). Besides, I'm Canadian, I grew up reading Pierre Berton, not insert-name-of-American-historian-here, and I can make myself respect to John Kenney's argument if I try. Lord Bob 05:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
If you think the war was a British victory, then you're quite in disagreement with Pierre Berton, as expressed in his book Flames Across the Border. His opinion is that claims of victory by any side is questionable, but what is not questionable was that the Native Americans lost. -- 06:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Just because I read him (avidly) doesn't mean I agree with everything he wrote. Besides, I don't feel it strongly enough to edit it into the article, as evidenced by the fact that in my months watching it, I never edited it in. Lord Bob 08:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say a successful defense against the original aggressor makes this a British victory. However, this is a technicality. Everyone agrees the result was more or less status quo ante bellum, the dispute is over how to interpret this. As such, why don't we just list that as the outcome and leave it uninterpreted in the box and main section? Josh

If I understand you correctly, I think I agree. I have no problem with text in the "Consequences of the war" section which explains how, although the treaty restored the status quo ante bellum, Canadians have traditionally felt as if they had won the war, since the American invasion had been thwarted.
This traditional Canadian view ignores what happened to their American Indian allies on the U.S. side of the border, of course, which is why many U.S. historians (especially in earlier generations) characterized British Canadians as cynical, machiavellian exploiters of American Indians. (Probably in part to downplay U.S. post-war perfidy regarding their own Indian allies.) --Kevin Myers 06:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Americans, on the other hand, can't understand why the Canadians think the U.S. lost. The overall war aim was not the conquest of Canada. The war aim was to force Great Britian to leave the U.S. alone. Canada was a goal, but not the only goal. Canada was a geographical expression, not a nation.

Canadians forget there were two land fronts to the American side, and in the southern front, the U.S. was victorious. The fact that the U.S., through victories in the North, the successful defense of Baltimore and the victories on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, proved it was the military equal of Britain. Even Lundy's Lane can be stretched to say it was an American tactical victory.

We ended the war with a string of military successes. We received a treaty of status quo ante bellum, and that was not a concession given by Britain out of kindness. The British wanted the final border to be uti possedi. It was won by American victory. -- GABaker 02:28 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This whole discussion is getting silly and petty. Those who state the war ended as status quo ante bellum stalemate have provided numerous references, both American and Canadian. Those who state the war ended as a British or American victory have provided no references at all, whether Canadian, American or Martian. This is a historical topic in Wikipedia. Either state your book references, or shut up. Stating some fuzzy Canadians have traditionally felt... arguments without any backing history texts will not get much sympathy from this Canadian.
Changed Result to Treaty of Ghent (status quo ante bellum) (reference Berton, Pierre Flames Across the Border). Unless anyone can provide any other reference stating that the conflict ended with anything other than the Treaty of Ghent, I suggest we leave it at that, and all the pathetic nationalistic posturings end.-- 06:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I love the phrase, "Either state your book references, or shut up." I've considered making a personal sub-page that said almost exactly this wording, in order to save some typing every time someone tries to inject personal interpretation into historical articles, which is often. (If someone comes up with a catchy acronym that expresses the sentiment "cite your source or go away", please let me know, because we could get some use out of it.)
However, I think you've slightly misread the situation here. Basically, I think most people here (Americans and Canadians alike) are currently in agreement about the wording (status quo ante bellum), except for one anonymous troll who keeps adding "slight British victory" and the NPOV tag. Mr. Anonymous is a troll because he does not cite sources to back up his interpretation, so his NPOV tag is illegitimate and can be removed as vandalism. --Kevin Myers 15:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
For the record, he was objecting to the wording calling the result a stalemate, which is not really backed up either. Since that's been removed, I think everyone is satisfied. Josh
Well, if that's the case, it's a problem, since stalemate is absolutely correct and easy to back up with citations. For example, renowned Canadian historian Jack Granatstein calls the War of 1812 a "stalemate" in the Oxford Companion to American Military History: "The resulting stalemate meant Canadian survival" (p. 100). Hickey says, "militarily the conflict ended in a draw" (War of 1812, p. 303.). Elting calls the outcome a "Mexican standoff" (Amateurs, to Arms, p. 327). These are just from the three books I have on my shelf -- it would probably be easy to come up with many other citations that state that the War of 1812 ended as a stalemate, or words to that effect. For what it's worth, a google search of "War of 1812" and "stalemate" returns almost 7,000 hits; even Microsoft Encarta calls the war a "stalemate" in its opening paragraph.
So, I'm restoring the original wording: "stalemate" is going back into the article (the info in the "warbox" is fine as it is). The current wording ("Although the War of 1812 had no territorial gains for either sides, with the British Empire defeating the American Offense, and the fact it is often only dimly remembered, the war had many effects on the futures of those involved.") is poorly worded and glaringly POV (or myopic or naive). If someone disagrees with describing the outcome of the war as a "stalemate", remember our new motto: cite your sources or STFU. --Kevin Myers 15:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Canadian author Pierre Berton also wrote that "The war ended in stalemate" in 'The Canadian Encyclopedia' available on-line here. The word as used in this and other references (such as Hickey) tend to be ironic (rather than incendiary) in intent, viewing the war, however it came to affect Canada and America as young nations, as a foolish misadventure. Was there a tactical stalemate at the end of 1814? Pretty much. To conjecture what would have happened in 1815 if war had continued is purely hypothetical. To claim victory for either side when the war ended in a tactical stalemate is just idle boasting. I vote we change the Result field to the unquestionable "American Indian defeat", since one side did defeat them and the other side did betray them. -- 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the internet is serious business, Kevin! --65.49.152.201 18:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You said it. For example, please see my completely factual and NPOV article on why baseball is better than hockey and cricket combined.
That's because if you combine hockey and cricket, you get a bunch of guys on ice skates running around a field for a week throwing pucks at each other...

This debate is fun, honestly!!! Me, on a personal note am British and i have to say that i am appaled that is war is so FORGOTTEN in Great Britain. Firstly, the war ended in 5,000 casualties for the British and 24,000 military casualties for the Americans.

Secondly, there are a HUGE amount of battles (all British victories) in the war that have not been made into articles in wikipedia, so that should be done, post haste!!

Finally, i agree that the war ended in stalemate. I have been told that the war has also ended in "a draw (In Britain's Favour)". So, it is best to leave it as that. Secant 02:02, August 12, 2005

Campaigns

To view (and edit) all of the campaign boxes that appear at the bottom of the individual battle boxes, see: War of 1812/Campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Myers (talk • contribs) 05:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be moved out of the namespace? into a project page (into wikipedia:xxx) or something? JDR 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN

The version by 68.167.145.76 on October 6 ([6]) was pretty funny and I think it deserves to be on Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. How does one do this? Luigizanasi 17:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should go there. I don't know how to do it and preserve authorship info, however. Jkelly 17:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
It was put on Wikipedia:Holy Bad Jokes, Batman! It's Other Deleted Nonsense! (the penultimate BJAODN page) by User:GABaker. Basically a cut and paste with no authorship info. I made some formatting changes. Luigizanasi 04:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't have enough time to do it better. GABaker 20:51 13 October 2005.
I've also put it on Wikipedia:More Best of BJAODN, since it more than met the criterion of "...at least one Wikipedian found it hilarious.. There are at least four of us. :-) Luigizanasi 21:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Creek war

Does the Creek war really belong in this article? As a full subsection given equal billing to all the Operations on the Ocean and in Canada? There was no British involvement, other than the fact that some of the protagonists had fought for the British. Not that I object to a brief mention of the fact that it is sometimes cnsidered part of the war of 1812. The quote in there could be moved to the end section on consequences of the war for the US. Thoughts anyone? Luigizanasi 00:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The Creek War is part of the War of 1812 in much the same way that the Pacific War is a part of World War II. For western Americans and American Indians, it was the same war. From the traditional British/Canadian and Eastern American perspective, it wasn't a part of the war. Chalk that up to old fashioned Eurocentrism, which is rooted in the belief that non-state peoples (meaning Indians), who weren't invited to peace conferences in places like Paris and Ghent, were not the equals of Euro-style states. Since the advent of "New Indian History" in the 1970s, many (but not all) historians tend to view American Indians as full actors in wars such as this, rather than as footnotes. I'm for the newer approach. (This approach has not fully entered the mainstream, as the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article called New Indian History would attest. All of this could be briefly mentioned in the Creek War section, to let readers know that interpretations have varied.)
However, you're right to object to the "Creek War" being a full subsection. It was previously more correctly labeled as a segment of operations in the American south. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 01:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
That might be a bit excessive. After all, the British and Canadians consider the Napoleonic Wars to be separate from the War of 1812, even though there is overlap. Germany and Japan were allies in World War II, and Germany actually declared war on the U.S. because Japan had. The Creeks had been friendly to the British, but the conflict had less to do with the Anglo-American War of 1812 than the Napoleonic Wars had to do with it. While there is a lot of racism still in the way people write history, I don't think this is one of those examples. David 04:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The Creek War was a result of certain Creeks (the Red Sticks, some of whom had been at the Battle of Frenchtown) joining Tecumseh's pan-tribal effort to drive back American expansion. The Red Sticks were allied with Tecumseh, who was allied with the British. Americans in the West supported an invasion of Canada not because they wanted Canada (they didn't), but because the British were giving support to the Indians. I wouldn't go so far as James W. Loewen, who states in Lies My Teacher Told Me that "the most important cause of the War of 1812" was "Indian land" and that the naval issues such as impressment were mere "pretext" for the declaration of war. (Americans didn't need to declare war on Great Britain to acquire title to Indian land — they were already doing that at an astounding rate). But I think he's right to emphasize that "the War of 1812 cannot be understood so long as its Indian origin is obscured" and we continue to view it in Eurocentric terms as a war between Americans and the British, with some Indian involvement as a footnote. The Red Stick Creeks were fighting the same war that Tecumseh was fighting. If Tecumseh was fighting in the War of 1812, so were the Creeks. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 08:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Queenston Heights Peer Review

Hey. The Battle of Queenston Heights was just put up for peer review by yours truly, and I figured I'd shamelessly solicit opinion from the War of 1812philes in the audience. So, anybody who could offer input on the review in question would have my eternal gratitude. Lord Bob 17:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term "American Indians"

Here we go again. The use of the term "American Indians" in the lead and in the table is problematic in my view. "American" commonly refers to citizens of the United States. Thus, neither of the terms "Native Americans" nor "American Indians" are applied to Aboriginal peoples in Canada. On the other hand, "First Nations", which is the term most accepted in Canada, is generic and can apply to people on either side of the border who fought in this war. What to do? Well, if we cannot agree on any of the above terms, we should go with the more generic term "Indigenous peoples" Sunray 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How about North American Indian, which I believe to be clear & unambiguous? "First Nations" is likely to confuse non-Canadians. See Native American name controversy and the discussion at Native Americans in the United States. For Canadians, note that Statistics Canada uses "North American Indian" in its Census publications. Luigizanasi 16:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like "North American Indian". Lord Bob 16:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe that contemporary reports often referred to them as "savages", but perhaps that is no longer Politically correct ;-). Dabbler 17:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the humorous note, Dabbler. It brings up an important point, though. The people were variously called "savages" and "Indians" by Europeans of that era. Neither term is politically correct. Not that I am into "political correctness," mind. :-) However, (as I have pointed out elsewhere in Wikipedia), one of the two meanings of the word "Indians" in most dictionaries is "a native or national of India, or a person of Indian descent." It is for this reason that alternatives have been sought. In Canada, First Nations was the term settled upon by both officials and the people themselves. In the U.S., however, it has not been so clear. The first choice of the people is invariably the name of their tribe or nation. Beyond that, many still refer to themselves as "Indians." Others use the terms "Native American" or "American Indian." If you compare the usage on the Internet for "American Indian" vs. "Native American" the latter comes up significantly higher. So strictly speaking, we should say "Native American" and "First Nations." However, some people continue to have a problem with that, hence I'm suggesting we stick with the more general "Indigenous Peoples." Whether you say "American Indian" or "North American Indian", it still has that word "Indian" in it. Sunray 19:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
At least for now, "Indian" remains an official usage in some quarters. For instance, in Canada, the department is called the "Department of Indian Affairs". I can't speak for the United States, of course. When somebody refers to a "North American Indian", almost everyone knows what they're talking about, if nothing else. Lord Bob 20:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I know what a North American Indian is. It's a native of India who now lives in North America, right? Sunray 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully you're kidding and not just being argumentative, since no one would really think that. ;-)
I like "North American Indian" too, and have used it elsewhere where the subject "overlaps" the U.S. and Canada. However, I'd be pleasantly surprised if any compromise term will last, since the insidious power of political correctness knows no bounds. One can oppose American PC, or Canadian PC, but to combat both at once is unlikely to be productive.
The use of the word "Indian" in an unambiguous compound term such as "North American Indian" to describe the natives of North America is not only "linguistically correct" (North American Indians are Indians), it has the advantage of being "historically correct" (Indians were historically called Indians) as well as being respectful of the usage of many of the people themselves—um, "respectfully correct" (many or most Indians call themeselves Indians). This is in sharp contrast to the awkward terms "Native American" and "First Nations", which are non-historical and apparently imposed by well-meaning folks who didn't bother to ask the Indians if they wanted a new name. "North American Indian" clearly has a lot of advantages, although it's not politically correct, but then again political correctness is no longer politically correct, so maybe it is politically correct, if you follow me. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Some people on the political right like to use the term "politically correct" as a slur, just like George H.W. Bush did. So how about we dispense with that term (even in jest) and just talk about correct. "First Nations" was not an imposed term. There has been a broad consensus in Canada that it is a good and valid term, as the Assembly of First Nations attests. There is no such consensus about the word "Indian" in either country. Many in the U.S. still use the term, but there is no consensus. Google Duel shows a significantly greater use of the term "Native American" than "American Indian". In an encyclopedia we need to find the correct, or in some cases, the least contentious, term. To my mind "North American Indian" does not solve the problem. Sunray 17:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
For starters, can you cite any examples of Canadian First Nations who object to the term "North American Indian"? How contentious is that term? The "Assembly of First Nations" was known as the "National Indian Brotherhood" into the 1980s; have First Nations people fully rejected the term "Indian"? Cite sources please.
I ask because, in debates over "American Indians" versus "Native Americans", a number of (presumably white American) Wikipedians used to insist that "Indians" was offensive to Native Americans in the United States. I came up with a poll and other articles that showed they didn't really know what they were talking about: what was apparently going on is that they had been taught in school to say "Native Americans" rather than "Indians", and they had assumed "Indians" was outdated or offensive, like "Negro". Personally, I didn't really care which term was used at the time, I just wanted the debate to be based on actual sources rather than assertions.
Same deal here: I've yet to see any hard data on this issue with regards to Canada. Again, many (presumably white) Canadians assert that "Indians" is outdated or offensive, but rarely by citing any sources. I know there are other considerations in this debate, but I think establishing with objective evidence (rather than personal assertion) how Canadians of all races feel about and use the term "Indians" is a good place to start. If it can be demonstrated that many Canadians (of all races) object to the word "Indian" in any context, then we need another compromise term other than "North American Indian". However, if most Canadians prefer "First Nations" but don't find "North American Indian" objectionable, then "North American Indian" would make a good compromise term. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 18:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
In an encyclopedia we need to consider the best term to use taking into account both usage and authoritative sources. "North American Indian" fails on both counts. It is not used. We cannot simply invent a term and then use it in an article (source: Wikipedia:No original research). It would be up to the advocate for this term to prove that the most acceptable term (i.e., most used; most authoritative) in order to be able to use it here. The ball is in your court. Sunray 06:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Is Statistics Canada good enough? (see here [7] for the population of all ethnicities in Canada in 2001, or here [8] for a recent forecast of aboriginal population in Canada). If you want American references: how about here [9] for Edward Curtis highly influential book of images? Or maybe this [10] more recent book? (sorry about the amazon link, here [11] is the author's web site.) How about a book on North American Indian Jewelry and Adornment? Maybe Boston's North American Indian Center? Also the North American Indian Tennis Association of all things. Luigizanasi 06:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Add to that: Frederick E. Hoxie, ed. (1996). Encyclopedia of North American Indians Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-66921-9 Luigizanasi 06:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see what's wrong with "North American Indians." Referring to Indians at the time of the War of 1812 as "first nations" (especially) or "indigenous peoples" (to a lesser extent) is simply ridiculous, the first is clearly biased towards Canadian usage, and there is yet to be any demonstration that "North American Indians" is either confusing or offensive. It is, at any rate, not a made up term, it is a rather obvious compound term which, as Luigizanasi has shown, is at least occasionally used. The idea that someone might think the term "North American Indians" refers to North Americans descended from dwellers of the subcontinent is completely absurd. john k 07:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Luigizanasi has done a good job of establishing that the term "North American Indian" is used. As well, Statistics Canada is certainly an authoritative source. So let's look at usage. Comparisons of the number of Internet hits for the various terms yields the following:
  • Native American (3,070,000)
  • American Indian (1,870,000)
  • First nations (352,000) - primarily used in Canada
  • North American Indian (43,100)
North American Indian isn't a very commonly used term. My point about the subcontinent (an attempt at humour) was that the word "Indian" correctly refers to a native of India and thus is not acceptable for an encyclopedia that aspires to be better than Britanica. Sunray 07:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I think your tally of Internet hits shows that "North American Indian" is indeed the very best "overlap" term on the list, since "First Nations" is used only in Canada, and Canadians don't much care for "Native American" and "American Indian", that leaves us the perfectly acceptable term "North American Indian" when writing about the natives of North America in general. This has the additional advantage in historical articles of not artificially separating North American Indians into two categories (First Nations & Native Americans) not created by them, along a border not drawn by them. The Iroquois who fought on both sides of the War of 1812 were not two different peoples, of course. Nor were the Shawnee.
And hats off to Luigizanasi. There should be a little something extra in your next paycheck from Wikipedia. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 08:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Somebody should make a barnstar for "point-making research on talk pages above and beyond the call of duty". :P I echo Kevin Myers's sentiments. Lord Bob 17:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The term I used, "Indigenous peoples," gets 468,000 hits, and is thus a much more commonly used term. Sunray 09:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
"Indigenous peoples" is a much more non-specific term that can be used to describe Incans, Mayans, Australian aborigines, and basically anybody who was there before you were, so its Google count would be packed with references to people that we aren't talking about. I don't really object to the term, mind you, but I prefer "North American Indians" for its specificity. Lord Bob 17:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

While the term "Indians" is certainly one which is liable to be misinterpreted, it is simply not true that "North American Indians" is either incorrect or confusing. john k 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has commented in the last 10 days or so, I will change "Indigenous peoples" to "North American Indians". Of those who cared enough to comment, it was four for "North American Indians", one for "Indigenous peoples" and one facetiously for "Savages". For what it's worth, consensus seems to point to using "North American Indians" in this article. The fact that North American Indian redirects to Indigenous peoples of the Americas is a consolation priozer for Sunray. :-) Now, if the Americans hadn't lost the war, we wouldn't be having this discussion. ;-) Luigizanasi 05:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

References

How does anyone know, which books and other sources were used to create this article? I suggest we use the title "Further reading" and sort them. The list of books on the War of 1812 is huge, it may require a separate article to list them. Battlefield 15:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's good practice for editors to write down their sources when they do an article. I say it's good practice despite the fact that I hardly ever remember to do it, but I imagine that's where most of the sources came from. Still, a further reading section would be a good idea. We don't need to list all the books on the War, just the major ones...we're an encyclopaedia, not a library. Lord Bob 16:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you consult the most recent edition of "The Incredible War of 1812," by J. Mackay Hitsman, edited by Donald E. Graves (Robin Brass Studios, Toronto, 1999), it contains an extensive (35 pages), albeit not complete bibliography of the war. If I may, Pierre Berton was a popular historian and did not mind following the rule "do not let the facts get in the way of a good story," so it would better to use scholarly works. Thank-you, John G, Canada.

Consequences of the War

Hello Friends,

Without starting WW3, might I suggest that we shorten this section to one paragraph and then use a "Main Article" link, this section and the article are becoming to long. Input welcome Battlefield 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

I created a stub called "Warof1812-stub" this will allow all the stubs to be aggregated for this topic under one roof. I you know of any War of 1812 articles that are flagged stubs to the "General Military" please replace them with the new stub, so we can get better control of them. Thanks

Battlefield 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_1&oldid=1083541016"