Talk:War of 1812/Archive 10

The Straight Dope

I urge editors of this article to read The Straight Dope about the War of 1812 (which I've added to it as an external link, besides giving the link here). It addresses some issues of bias in the article, particularly about the war's winners and losers, and gives some excellent references. The neutrality of the WP article would be improved by taking a lead from what this impartial (and American) source says. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for losing my temper, look how about just for once please reading the pages above? I can find as many historians that think the US fought it to a draw as thought it lost. I am one of the Americans that does think we lost however just exactly what are you claiming a bias about? Tirronan (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'straight dope' indeed. Lines like 'I asked my Canadian friend, Straight Dope Message Board member Northern Piper, about Canadian attitudes on the War of 1812. He echoed the point about Canadians viewing the thwarted invasion as a victory, noting that many Americans describe an equally complicated conflict, the Vietnam War, as having ended in defeat.' and the fact that it is written by a chap called 'Gfactor' means this is likely not going to pass reliable source. It looks like he took a few sources and synthesised his own conclusion. Narson (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The following points can not be ignored:

• The United States clearly established herself as an independent nation amongst its people
• By not being defeated, it led to the impetus of broadening the borders of the United States and an idea of destiny
• The weakness of not having a trained, quality standing army and navy was shored up by vastly improving both

No matter what had happened before the Treaty of Ghent, it was clear that after the War of 1812 the United States was not defeated and it was not Vietnam- how irresponsible. It had the opposite effect, and spurred tremendous growth. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 13:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Straight Dope is not a reliable source for the War of 1812, in that it is not a peer-reviewed historical source. Not to say that it isn't interesting, or that we cannot use it. Just that we cannot use it to determine who "won" the war. It is interesting reading and may be illuminating for many who were taught the myth. Sunray (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing about that article was that it goes out of its way to say taking Canada never was the primary reason for the war... The real problem is that you can find someone to support any side of any argument you care to make where this war was concerned. I'm reading an American author that thinks taking Canada was one of the primary reasons. Tirronan (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way to deal with this is to focus on the primary evidence — what people actually said and did — without worrying too much about interpretations from secondary sources. The article does not have to try to guess what people were secretly thinking. For example, Thomas Jefferson did say that capturing Canada would be simply a matter of marching, and the declaration of war did not mention acquiring more territory in Canada. If there are some writers, etc. who did mention that at the time, then we can quote them without trying to impose a conclusive interpretation. David (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who were the four?

Question: "Meanwhile, following the abdication of Napoleon, 15,000 British troops were sent to North America under four of Wellington’s most able brigade commanders."

Who were the 4 brigade commanders to come from the Peninsular? Just curious, really. Carre (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that Pakenham was one of them. I am not sure but I think Ross was another. These four had extensive combat experience in the Peninsular War, and thus were competent to fight Brother Jonathan. Of course, both Pakenham and Ross were KIA, one at New Orleans and one at North Point.GABaker 14:32, 24 Jan 2008 UTC

American vs United States

Can we substitute some "US" and "American" to break up all of the instances of "United States" that have replaced every instance of "American" in the article? It's a much less comfortable read now.Zebulin (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it read better /before/. The whole United States thing is just weird. The adjective is Americans, no? Narson (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I am the guilty party here, someone objected to the term American, trust me we call ourselves American and are more than comfortable being named such. Feel free to change it. Tirronan (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that "American" refers to peoples in 2 continents and over 30 countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.174.7 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use the term "American" here. This is the English Wikipedia, and "American" is the standard English adjective for U.S. citizens, as it is in virtually every language except Spanish. CenozoicEra (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Symbols?

What do the symbols next to Tecumseh and Issac Brock mean? And what significance did Brock have in the war? Das.avatar (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The symbols mean that each was killed in battle during the war. Brock's leadership of the British army and Canadian militia led to the British capture of Forts Mackinac and Detroit and played a key role in repulsing American attacks on Upper Canada during the first year of the war (see Isaac Brock#War of 1812). Sunray (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fort Amanda, Ohio

Is there a way information about Ft. Amanda could be added to the Northwest US section?

"Fort Amanda was one of a series of forts extending north from Piqua to Ft. Meigs (present day Perrysburg), built by order of General William Henry Harrison. These forts helped supply the army protecting the Northwest from British invasion during the war of 1812. Ft. Amanda's construction began in the fall of 1812 under the directorn of Lt. Col. Robert Poague who named in Amanda in honor of his daughter. The original fort is believed to have measured 160 feet by 160 feet. Located at the head of navigation of the Auglaize River, it had a small landing with a boat yard and served as a supply post and hosptial. Soldiers built riverboats or pirogues to transport soldiers and supplies. Approximately 75 peiorgues were built during the winter of 1812-1813.

Although Ft. Amanda saw no fighting during the war, it served as an important link in this supply line. On Decwember 24, 1814, the United States and Britian signed the treaty of Ghent, which ended the war. By early 1815 the fort was abandoned and eventually taken over by local settlers. In the cemetery near the fort are 75 headstones dedicated to the memory of unknown American soldiers of the war of 1812. Some speculate these mark the graves of soldiers who were casualties of wounds or disease. The original fort is no longer standing but a granite monument was built in 1915 at the site of the original fort. The monument as well as the cemetery can be view during daylight hours."

I visited the area and would be more than happy to contribute an image of what the fort looked like, or the obliske there now.

Stepshep (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

Why is this article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.13.95 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was protected on January 25. The reason was "Heavy IP vandalism." The protection level was changed to semi-protected on January 28. Given the revision history and patterns of vandalism, that seems appropriate to me. Sunray (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was blocked because some editors have great difficulty admitting that the United States lost the War of 1812. There really is no room for debate on this. Any arguments about 'ongoing discussion' or 'heated debate' distract from the fact that by all objective measures, America was crippled by this war and desperately sought an end to the damage it had inflicted. America lost and some people would rather that not be included in this entry. There you have your answer.

70.83.154.14 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

new discussion subpage?

Is it possible to divert who won the war discussion to a discussion sub page? Perhaps that would reduce the frequency of the same arguments being rehashed over and over.Zebulin (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am in favor of buying them all tickets to a major sporting arena and giving them all stone clubs to beat each other to death with. --Tirronan (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea, either. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt it would move the discussion there, the anons would still post here, we'd just have to move the comments over...then they'd post here again asking why their comments got deleted. Narson (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea; there's something similar here.It's worth a try, and previous spats on the subject can be archived there. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Narson. There is likely no way we can absolutely prevent folks from posting their unresolved issues about the war (jingoism, patriotism, national angst, or whatever), here. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You know as a American we go through this on the Civil War as well, everyone with an opinion just insists on blogging it to death regardless of actual fact. I had more of the same on the battle of waterloo with folks very upset that I began to put in sections with the Prussians in the battle. It doesn't matter the historic facts its their opinion that matters. --Tirronan (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a "Do Not Feed The Troll" label? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good strategy. Also, simply removing text that doesn't meet the talk page guidelines, in some cases. Sunray (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I have set up a link for a page of discussions about "who won" for when you guys are done. Sunray (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm done please do so, that guy is never going to stop and its gone to trolling in my opinion. --Tirronan (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol why do you guys keep refering to me in the third person? I will stop when the page is satisfactory to both sides...70.54.16.238 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1. You don't have an account, 2. you have yet to bring up anything reputable to really consider making a change, 3. Its a subject beaten to death and specifically asked not to engage in it, 4. Nothing is being done to improve the article while you keep trolling. More than enough reason thank you. --Tirronan (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion on this page about "who won" to the page created for "Who won the war" discussions. Sunray (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lock

Maybe we should apply for a permanent semi-protect given the amount of vandalism this page gets. --Tirronan (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Sunray (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Its been granted apparently the admins agree too! --Tirronan (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's responsive! Sunray (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for this article. It was very helpful during my research on the War of 1812. User:chris gonzalez —Preceding comment was added at 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The instigation versus causation of the war.

Cutting to the actual push for war:

It seems the article currently places much of the blame for the war on the British side, while some respected scholars see that the U.S. did indeed have designs on Canada and some interested individuals used the power to select the Jeffersonian party candidate for President to pressure Madison into an ill-advised war.

Quote from the Wall Street Journal, 3/24/2007: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631654451858227.html?mod=hps_europe_at_glance_most_pop

"But the historical record on this is not heartening. During the reign of the Jeffersonians, the progenitors of today's Democrats, the congressional caucus chose the party's nominee. It was a system that yielded mediocrity, even danger. Congressional hawks pushed James Madison into the War of 1812 by demanding ever more aggressive trade restrictions against Great Britain and ultimately declaring war -- all because they wanted to absorb Canada. It ended with a stalemate in the north, the torching of the U.S. capital, and Gen. Andrew Jackson winning a victory at the Battle of New Orleans." - John Yoo, law professor at University of California, Berkeley; visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Yoo can be quoted independently. The quotation above is of his own text by his own hand.

Notably this electoral system eventually led to the infamous "corrupt bargain" and should be examined as a contributing factor to U.S. demand for war in the 1812 item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.77.5 (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I will say it for the last time and then I will cease talking to you ever again. Get an account I dispise folks that love setting fire to the barn hiding behind an IP address. Second, this isn't a reputable source but an Law professor speaking to another function and using the war of 1812 to support another argument.

There seems to be a faction here that have two causes that they consider sacred and have to have blasted all over Wikipedia... the 1st being that the USA started the war of 1812, which by the way any American that ever cracked a history book would agree with... we declared war. The 2nd fact that you would like to make is that THE ROTTEN SON OF A GUNS HIT US WHEN OUR BACKS WERE TURNED!!!! I've seen that too many times to count, followed by the headlines CANADA beats the Snot out of the US and take that Yank! Oh and I forgot... because there was a faction of the Congress that wanted Canada, that automatically becomes the entire country.

I would strongly suggest that you read a few histories on the subject. Like most wars this one has very few "good guys" and some of them that I ended up admiring most were some of the British Generals that ended up dead, Ross, Brock, and Packingham. What you end up losing by your POV warring is the subtleties that make up so much of this war. Some of them seem to go completely go over your head, like the fact that the US went to war with the British Empire not Canada, despite the number of folks inserting a British/Canadian Victory, or the fact that British warships felt free to hover inside US ports and stop and seize US merchants in US waters insight of US harbors for a decade before the US went to war, or that there was such a fear of Governmental dictatorship that the US really didn't have a standing army and barely a standing navy at the start of the war. Nor did it have a single General that didn't harken back to the revolution. None of these things seem to lend credence to an aggressive and warlike intent by the US. There are quite a few original minutes of the US Congress available so why not actually do something that would actually impress the hell out of me and READ them instead of quoting poorly supporting articles clearly intended to support an entirely different argument in a completely silly and out right stupid attempt to take this article from an accurate recitation of historical events and make it something else. There are at least 5 editors here only one of which is American so claiming an American bias would seem a bit of a reach.

If you want to be taken seriously please take the time to get real sources that are cit-able, sourcable, and reputable. Don't bring a link to a web site to something that has at best a bushing reference and expect it to be taken seriously and don't accuse the article of bias where that hasn't been the intent. I would be shocked if any of the editors here would accuse the UK of starting the war... sheesh! Tirronan (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

unclear wording

The first sentence in the overview is: The war started badly for the Americans as an attempt to invade Canada in August 1812 was repulsed by Major-General Isaac Brock, commanding a small force composed of some 350 regular British troops supported by local militias and American Indian allies, and led to the British capture of Detroit.

The term "American Indian allies" should be changed to "Native American allies" to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.225.253 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indians

In several places this article refers to "Indians." These should all be changed to Native Americans, American Indians or Amerindians, whichever is the normal naming convention. Indian is outright wrong since it refers to a person from India and we can be certain that the Indians were not in the Americas. --76.69.63.93 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would take a bet that any population wasn't in the US at that point at least in 1s and 2s. To some degree everyone was welcome and the entire coast was a port to the world. Tirronan (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant, though; people from India did not play a significant role in this war. The Indians referred to were indeed American ones, not Asians. And that is perfectly clear from the context, and needs no change. -- Zsero (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the point here is that since everyone is an editor that you might make that change then, I don't think anyone is all that worried about the change to American Indians or Native Americans. --Tirronan (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why do articles in which the American troops won or drew with the British say something on the lines of "this battle proved that American troops could hold their own against British troops if properly trained and well led"? ANYONE can hold their own against anyone else if properly trained and well led, I do believe that this statement should not hold a special reservation just for wars between Britain and the United States. (Trip Johnson (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Actually I think that this shouldn't be in the article, American troops had been holding their own against British Regulars since the Battle of Monmouth (sp) in the revolutionary war. I think some of the editors are reacting to some fairly horrible results in the 1st 2 years of the war of 1812 when a General of the Revolutionary War took troops (mostly militia) and without training or logistics planning marched up and with what was now a moth eaten and throughly demoralised mob, turned tail and ran at the 1st sign of opposition, and this would happen over and over. By the 3rd year American troops gave at least as well as they got and often the better of the situation as long as they had competent command. What this change in events did do was push both sides closer to peace because the Canadian theater now looked like it would never really change. Tirronan (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The specific quotation comes from the article on the Battle of Chippawa. In the context of the improvement in training and morale following Scott's "Camp of Instruction", it is worth retaining in this specific article (although its POV might be toned down a little), and perhaps mentioning in passing (once) in any broader article on the War. HLGallon (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We might give some thought to the role that the various Commanders played in the war as well. Brock and Tecumsha worked well and put a backbone in their troops. Prevost did almost the opposite, we have General Dearborn and General Hull who were a disgrace to their uniforms. We have a out and out spy and traitor in Wilkerson who managed to be incompetent as well. Harrison performed well and Scott was mostly outstanding. Simple things went so far and it was amasing to me how much single men could change the face of war here. Tirronan (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone forgot something...

In the article they forgot the best part of the war: the Canadians burning most of Washington that is why the treaty was signed: they missed their parlament, lucky for them the Presidents house (White House before it was white) was still in ok shape, but burned badly so they repaired it but it was still all ashy so it was white-washed so yes Canadians rock hard :) (99.250.89.162 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Neither Ross nor Cockburn nor the marine units they led into Washington were Canadian. There does not appear to be evidence of even a single Canadian involved in that or any of the other coastal raids. If you are convinced this is an ommission kindly provide us with the sources we need to support this. If the article were to credit the raid to Canadians it would be about as absurd as if the Battle of Gettysburg were to credit Californians for that victory.Zebulin (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI here's a link to a site that lists the units that took part in the washington raid.

http://www.warof1812.ca/charts/regts_na.htm

They were not Canadian militias and they had not been constituted in Canada but were veterans of the Napoleonic war.Zebulin (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

mistake?

im doing a report on the war of 1812 and my history textbook says that only 16 americans ships were in the war not 18. which one is correct?

1. REDIRECT war of 1812 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.13.22 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously, first thing to say is love of christ don't use Wiki articles to write reports :) As for the discrepency, it is more likely the wiki article is wrong, though, it is also possible it is a discrepency on the 'cut off point' where ships are counted. Perhaps there were a couple of sloops of war that the text book doesn't include because they are too small or such. Our article acctually lists 20 US ships (The 6 original frigates plus 14 others). It is possible they don't list the 2 frigates that were captured by the British for some reason. It is kind of difficult to guess. But yes, use the text book, not wiki :) Narson (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ian W. Toll, listed 17 American Navy Ships at the start of the war and 3 Frolic class Sloops of war were built and went to sea for a total of 20. Any history claiming to have a solid count is wasting time however, records of 1812 being somewhat below standard, loss of some documents over time, and some captured or burnt. We are exactly one finding of "Aunty Flora's basement" to find there were 3 more we didn't know a thing about last week... follow Narson's advise and use the Textbook. Tirronan (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt (from which I have worked for battles on the Lakes) counted only 16 sea-going vessels at the start of the war. The Americans built or purchased three small vessels in 1812, three more small fry in 1813 and nineteen vessels in 1814 (including five Frolic class, although only three of these sortied before the end of the war). One captured British frigate (HMS Macedonian) was taken into service. This total of forty-two includes several which were useful as tenders or despatch vessels only. HLGallon (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You've included all the great lakes fleets too? I didn't bother with incomplete warships and you have a few of questionable value. The Frigate Adams was cut down to a sloop, 2 were burned at the stocks, sloop and frigate, you have the Erie fleet, the Champlain fleet, and another under Chauncy on Lake Ontario. anyway I'm pretty sure there was a large privateer or two that was purchased as well, some of the larger ones were sloops in their own right, that have escaped notice. Hard counts are not that easy on this one. It would have been a more fun war had the 4 ships of the line and 6 heavy frigates been completed at least from a Naval history view. Tirronan (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening Picture

Why is the first picture of the article one of a United States loss, and not a victory, such as the Battle of New Orleans or the USS Constitution defeating the HMS Guerierre? Redsox00002 (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the US lost most of the battles? At a guess. Narson (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, why should we prefer pictures of one side's victories over ones of the other side's victories? -- Zsero (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for an infobox picture, I quite like it. The composition, with the dying General in the centre, the blurred maelstrom around him...then there is that the Queenstown was one of the battles that made the war of 1812 this multi-year slog, the failure of the American attacks in 1812. Most (if not all) of the pictures within the article itself are of American victories so it balances the prominance of the Queenstown Heights, IMO. Narson (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and in looking at it that way it makes sense, but considering the US won the war, I still think it should be a US victory, IMHO.Redsox00002 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The US didn't win the war :) Narson (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly its a push to even call it a draw. Tirronan (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The US gained legitimacy by defeating the British a second time and when the war began they were terribly unprepared and still won key victories.Redsox00002 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Look I am an American too and I'd love to claim it as a victory, frankly I just can't. At best the US managed to defend its soil when it really tried to never had an answer to the Brit navy. In the end both sides had to look at what had once been a primary trading partner and ask themselves "just when did this make sense?". I honestly don't think (and Wellington agreed btw) that the British could have ever "taken over" America but we sure as hell were not winning. Last thing said on this or it gets moved over to the "who won the war silly assed dicussions and I am not kidding Tirronan (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the best the British ever hoped for was some portion of New England, reduce the size of its border with the states by making the border 'flatter'. But yes, arn't we going towards an argument over who won again? Narson (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No one won. Now shut up with the immature comments Redsox00002, Learn your HISTORY before you make a comment. (Butters x (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

luv this site!!!!

i think this is an awsome site and i am working on the war so it is an awsome site 4 kids and adults! i have 2 kittens in my hands so i can't talk...bye!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.252.253 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Err...Ok... (Butters x (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

That is seriously one of the funniest comments I've seen on a talk page here. Momo Hemo (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletion

EasyPeasy21 deleted a section that had an OR bit in it (Not cited anymore) but was cited in general. What is the view on its deletion? Should we restore what isn't OR. Narson (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like just another attempt to turn this into the American/Canadian war again to me. Reading the history seems that more than a few in Congress thought that the Canadian colonist really didn't want to be part of the crown either which didn't turn out to be the case. However trying very hard to make the invasion of Canada one of the primary causes isn't the historic fact nor the one supported by the vast majority of historians. Tirronan (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

which part was the OR?Zebulin (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That no-one is citing it anymore strikes me as a bit of OR (as it is a negative and so very difficult to be proven) Narson (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After discussing it with Easy perhaps something more in line with the Maritime/trade issues being the central causes of the war is is both provable and citiable would be an answer. My only objection remains that I don't believe nor does the weight of the evidence available show that an American desire to annex Canada was a primary cause of the war. Tirronan (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Citable though. Certainly we should mention it. We /can/ say that it was widely cited as a cause, giving the cites currently in that sentence, then go on to say that modern study believes expansionism to have been an ideal held by a fringe, or whatever we can cite. Slap a cite on that and Robert is your father's estranged brother. Far more useful sentence that one with a negative on the end. Narson (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that would be terribly difficult to do. I'll attend to it tonight. Who would have thought it? Johnathan and the Kipper... Tirronan (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the section for a couple of reasons:

Firstly, the section states that the view that US expansionism was a cause of the war is rarely held by historians today. I have no problem with that view, if it supported by evidence. However, the section only cites three historians from 67-83 years ago. That is not sufficient evidence for that viewpoint.

Secondly, only the names of the historians are cited, and the dates they presented their viewpoints. Names of books, publishers, and page references are needed for the citation to be allowable, imho.

I am sorry that these reasons were not stated in the edit summary of my edit. I had edited the article beforehand, and placed those reasons in the edit summary, but I accidentally edited twice the same thing, so the edit with the reasons in the edit summary was removed from the history.

Tirronan and I are working on creating a better section.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this and after careful consideration I would expect a section to talk about the war hawk section of congress and it's intention of taking whatever could be called to hand, that is both a truth and fairly easy to document, the 2nd issue takes a bit more research but I've read it before that Canada was believed to be a: a barganing chip to get GB off America's back (going to take a bit to get a few sources on this) b: The only way the US had to get at the Brits (easy to do). However I do believe this to be the closest that we are going to get to the truth and in all fairness to the Canadians there certainly was a faction that thought conquoring Canada and annexing it would solve many issues. Just how they were going to deal with an prolonged insurgency and constant maritime raids by Great Britian I've yet to understand, but then again my current government certainly demostrates that even a country can overestimate its abilities on the ground. Tirronan (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the work you have done to improve the articles citations etc, I certainly have faith in you Tir. Speaking of, should we look at pushing the status of this article to GA? Narson (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Provinces

I just wanted to state that it is incorrect to list Newfoundland as part of the 'Canadian Provinces' when listing or discussing the belligerent parties involved in the war. Newfoundland was a colony of Great Britain until 1907, upon which it became a British Dominion and separate country. It is therefore incorrect to list Newfoundland as one of the Canadian Provinces, as it did not become as such until 1949. This should therefore be corrected, or clarification should be made as to what 'Canadian Provinces' means (i.e. what are now present day Canadian Provinces of etc.)--Mrcooker (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

reorganiztion

there is going to be some reorganization of theis page, more toward being chronologically correct, more to come. Ishmaelblues (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

he late 18th and early 19th century was an era of conflict. The war between Great Britain and France raged between 1793 and 1815 with few interruptions. As a part of the British Empire, Upper Canada was unable to escape this broader conflict and when, on June 18, 1812, the United States declared war on Britain, Canada was brought to the front line of what had become a world war.

Just like armed conflict in any part of the world, the War of 1812 had a significant effect on the local population. This exhibit focuses on the impact of the War on those living in Upper Canada at the time of the conflict and on later generations who sought ways to remember it. It documents how the war was fought both within the province and in locations beyond its borders, and it examines the War's later image in the popular imagination.

The exhibit also provides an opportunity for the Archives of Ontario to shed light on invaluable documents from its rich collections, many of which have never been published and are made widely available to the public for the first time.

Setting the Stage Battlegrounds Detroit Frontier Niagara Frontier and York Kingston and the St. Lawrence The War Beyond Upper Canada Militia and Civilian Life Prisoners of War Loyalty and Treason The War Ends After the War Chronology of the War Soldiering in Canada (1812-1814) Important Figures Important Places Glossary of Terms Sources Links The Making of a Virtual Exhibit

Correspondence and diaries contemporary to the war tell the story in the words of those who lived through it. A broad variety of documentary art, illustrations drawn from the work of artists and later photographers has been selected to help bring these contemporary words to life, and sound bites recreate a flavour of the times.

THIS INFO IS JUST A ICE WAY TO ADVERISE THE WEBSITE BELOW. ALL OF THIS INFO CAN BE VIEWED AT THE WEBSITE - http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/ENGLISH/exhibits/1812/index.html For any question please make sure you get in touch with us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G. minhas (talk • contribs) 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Over my dead body... Tirronan (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada Not Nation until 1867

There was no nation of Canada except terrorities under control of the British Empire, this should be corrected. Otherwise, it's like saying "Israel was part of the Ottoman empire in 1912" when no Israeli state existed then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.247.142 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but Upper and Lower Canada did elect assemblies and the Canadians did not want to be "liberated" by the US--Ret.Prof (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

None of which excuses trying to make the assimilation of Canadian terriotories a primary issue for the start of the war when there is little citable information to that effect and with no citation whatsoever. I have little doubt that the US would not have returned the territory unless forced to or desired to for other concessions if it had won, however it is pretty much indisputable that maritime/trade issues are at the core of the war of 1812 and frankly I was a bit shocked. Tirronan (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812 Citation Needed Resolved

In the Book Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville, page 140, he states: "In the War of 1812, the president ordered the militia of the northern states to march to the frontiers; but CT and MA, whose interests were impaired by the war, refused to obey the command. They argued that the constitution authorizes the federal government to call forth the militia in cases of insurrection or invasion, but that in the present instance, there was neither invasion nor insurrection. They added, that the same constitution which conferred upon the Union the right of calling forth the militia, reserved to the states that of naming the officers; and that consequently (as they understood the clause) no officer of the Union had any right to command the militia, even during war, except the president in person: and in this case they were ordered to join an army commanded by another individual. These absurd and pernicious doctrines received the sanction not only of the governors and legislative bodies, but also of the courts of justice in both states and the federal government was constrained to raise elsewhere the troops which is required."

See also Kent's Commentaries, Vol i, Pg 244 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idrivex (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I confess I don't understand what you are asking me to do? Tirronan (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)