Talk:War of 1812/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Outcome

Wars are normally described in Wikipedia as won by one side or another. Why not with the War of 1812 - could it be that the USA does not like to accept that it has ever been defeated? The USA started the war, it invaded Canada, and its invasion was defeated. I would call that an American defeat.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been talked to death and then some over a decade. The best answer we have is that this was a war both sides walked away from. Before we start down this road again... . No the US did not stab Canada in the back while it was at war with France. No neither side won a single offensive campaign. And in point of fact both sides agreed that no real progress had been made after 3 years of war. Hence Status Qu Antebellum. Literally as it was before the war.Tirronan (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The French and Indian War was won by Britain because France ceded Quebec to the UK. WW2 was won by the allies after the unconditional surrender of Germany. Nothing similar happened here. Who won the war in Vietnam? TFD (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam did ... that said, I think a link to Talk:War of 1812/Who Won? is all the response this really needs. The historiography is overwhelmingly in favour of status quo ante bellum. Rwenonah (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes the Korean War as a military stalemate and I believe that is a good analogy to this war.Dwalrus (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Unlike the Korean War, this might not have ended in a military stalemate, but it was ended with a peace treaty which essentially retained the political and territorial balance. Dabbler (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree that it "might not have have ended in a military stalemate," Wikipedia does not deal with what "might have happened" but with what did happen.Dwalrus (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Treaty of Ghent, the Korean ceasefire and the Paris Peace Accords all left boundaries essentially unchanged. south Vietnam of course fell to North Vietnam following U.S. withdrawal of troops, and the War in Korea has never officially ended, but the point is that wars often achieve little for both sides. That of course does not prevent either side from claiming victory. TFD (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that the outcome should reflect *both*the differing views, not just the status quo/stalemate view. That it is percieved by some as a Victory by Britain, and by others as a stalemate. While there are more historians the support the later, there is an argument that American historians tend to support the stalemate, and more British/Canadian authors support the former. People in Canada tend to see it as a Canadian victory, while people in the US (if they know what the war of 1812 is) tend to see it as a stalemate(status quo).Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The range of popular viewpoints is more complex. Very few amateurs pay any attention; few British scholars pay any attention to the war-- and those who do are divided. In the United States, the general view is that it was a military stalemate, but a major political, diplomatic and psychological victory for the Americans who thereby broke the British practice of humiliating the United States, and instead began treating the United States has a serious or even equal diplomatic player. The range in Canada is especially interesting. The idea of a British/Canadian victory is quite strong and is a foundational myth in Ontario. However that myth is no longer taught by Canadian scholars. in Quebec the war of 1812 is largely ignored, or else treated as a stalemate. The French Canadians do not celebrate British Imperial victories, as the refusal to support the British cause in the first and second world wars demonstrates. It's clear to me that the complex interpretations have much more to do with national ideology than have to do with actual military events. Case anyone missed it, I wrote a full-length scholarly article about the debate in this particular Wikipedia article. on line here. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It is more complex, but I would argue there is a pattern that indicates a UK bias to the historians that say it was UK victory, and a US bias to those authors that say stalemate. There is overlap, but I would still argue there is bias pertaining to the country from which the Historians are from. This indicates a National bias in the historians, and so a perspective based on nationality - something that should be reflected in the outcome box. There may be a difference within Canada, however polls have indicated there is clearly an *overall* Canadian preference to see it as a Canadian victory. And there is this guy (http://i2.wp.com/thisiswarblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/couplandsculpture.jpeg). I have read your article RJense, and I have seen the video of your presentation, both well done (kudos to you!). Ideally, the fact the outcome is disputed between Canada and the US, should be reflect in the outcome box, in the same way a disputed outcome is in this battle between the US and Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ia_Drang Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Academic scholars and textbook writers in Canada have dropped the issue--in recent years they don't say much at all about the war and ignore the win-loss issue. That I think is tied up with current Canadian politics: 1) Canada is united when it sees itself as a peace-making nation and military history is sharply downgraded--look closely at the Coupland statue--both soldiers are ridiculed as toys; 2) the claim rubs the French-speaking historians as proof of Anglo supremacy and that causes real pushback. Popular writers have also given the issue much less emphasis. It is alive & well in high schools, though, perhaps as a reflex of anti-Americanism. Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So you would say in your opinion, there is no pattern of national bias, in terms of historians, over the win/stalemate issue?Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Based on the precedent of the Battle_of_Ia_Drang, another military conflict where both sides claimed victory in IMHO the outcome should say:

• Result
• Canadian claimed victory/US claimed stalemate

By leaving the outcome as it presently is, a stalemate, it supports the US viewpoint, which I think is an issue with NPOV Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

for recent decades I see almost no bias on this issue among diplomatic historians--they generally are quite critical of all wars. Some military historians do wave their own flag. Rjensen (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree. I think in the last 10 years, there's a pattern of British historians supporting the viewpoint that the war was a Victory for Canada/Britain. I agree with you though, I think popularly, there is more a viewpoint than previously that among the public and amateur historians the war was a victory for Canada. Possibly based on some reassessement around the 200th anniversary. However within Canada of course it is still generally seen as a Victory, and within the United States, it is seen as a stalemate.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

US viewpoint? British viewpoint? better cite some recent RS for that argument. Which British scholars do you mean? Rjensen (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm speaking generally about the two specific viewpoints. It's seen as a victory in Canada and as a stalemate in the US, we all know this of course? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

However, there is certainly IMHO, a pattern for British writers to support British Victory, and Americans not. Here's one reference, at least:

• "Several British scholars have indeed studied their country’s second clash with the United States, and concluded that it was a triumphant one for John Bull. American historians, however, take umbrage at the suggestion that they “think” they won; the war, these scholars contend, can indeed be regarded as an American victory, at least in a limited sense. The explosion of literature for the war’s bicentennial has only exacerbated these trends, and two of the most recent works offer excellent examples of the ongoing fight over who can claim victory in the War of 1812." - Sheppard, Thomas "Dubious Victories: Refighting the War of 1812" Essays in History University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Issue: 2013, Quarter:Fall Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In terms of names, I can give you four at the moment, British Historians who have all written books in the last 10 years or so, with the conclusion that Britain won the war of 1812.

• (1) Carl Ben in "The War of 1812" Osprey 2002
• (2) Ron Latimer "1812 War with America 2007
• (3) Brian Arthur "How Britain Won the War of 1812" 2011 and
• (4) Andrew Lambert "The Challenge 2012 Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My argument is that the British naval guys are still waving the flag—comes from too much writing on WW2 I think. They have a good point on the success of the RN Blockade but they naval historians have not studied the diplomacy, but that’s what they want to talk about. The British diplomatic historians do not agree with them. Skip Benn. (He’s Canadian military and his one sentence comes from a lightweight popular book.) Latimer = military; Arthur = naval (“How Britain Won the War of 1812: The Royal Navy's Blockades of the United States, 1812-1815”) & likewise Lambert = Naval. Land war does not much interest them. Nor Canada. Lambert is sloppy when he gets on dry land. He is not too familiar with issues such as the defeat of the First Nations, the repulsed invasion of New York, or the failed invasion at new orleans. He seems unaware of the British plans to set up a neutral Indian state in the Midwest. It's what happens when a naval historian who is not done research in diplomatic history, or even the Army's history, starts waving the Union Jack. As I say, I think the diplomatic historians have buried that debate decades ago. Stagg is a leading British diplomatic specialist (a New Zealander). He says "Stalemate" as does Jeremy Black, another leading diplomatic specialist. Rjensen (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you RJensen. Putting aside your opinions on these Historian's work (which is fine, but we are talking about general opinions of historians in a wider sense, not subjectively debating their abilities)....I am mainly trying to get across the fact of a general pattern of British historians writing on the topic (and certainly that's what Sheppard, Thomas says).I take your point, I had referred to Carl Ben and he is not British. However, by your own admission, one of your refs is a New Zealander. So that leaves us with Latimer, Arthur and Lamber arguing for a British/Canadian victory, and Jeremy Black, arguing for a stalemate. Not sure what else is out there at the moment, but I will have a bit of a look tomorrow.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

a) the vast majority of British historians do not study the war of 1812--they work on the Napoleonic-related issues. [example: there is one sentence on 1812 in the long Foundations of British Foreign Policy from Pitt (1792) to Salisbury (1902) by Harold Temperley] b) a few naval specialists boast about the RN (Latimer, Arthur and Lambert--that's a new trend i think); c) a handful of diplomatic specialists deal with it (Stagg & Black are the only ones I can think of with books on 1812). Benn has not studied the diplomacy & has written a very thin book with out 2 sentences (unsourced). Stagg comes from the Brit Empire which is what is needed; He is perhaps the #1 authority on the politics of the war. d) Canada You mention British/Canadian victory --No, the navalists give Canada no victory credit at all; they say It's all the Royal navy & its blockade. Some Canadian/Ontario writers (like Benn) give Canada lots of credit, but they exclude the First Nations from Canada. that makes them very unpopular with mainstream Canadian historians. Benn also assumes Madison really wanted Canada, but he never looked into it. A much better Canadian book = THE WAR OF 1812: The War That Both Sides Won" by Prof Wesley Turner of Brock U; former president of the Ontario Historical Society. add John H. Thompson, a Canadian & a diplomatic specialist [US "repelled British amphibious assaults on coastal cities. In this sense, the War of 1812 was a decisive dead heat that confirmed the post Revolutionary military stalemate"] Rjensen (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(Insert)Woefully inept mischaracterization of Benn, who's written several books on First Nations in the War of 1812 ([in the War of 1812] and [Memoirs from the War of 1812]). If you expect to dismiss historians based on your opinions, kindly try to base them in reality and not POV. Rwenonah (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

We included a whole section towards multiple outlooks on this war. That is far more than most articles do. As for Lambert, having read his book thoroughly, a worse historian I have not seen in recent times. He does alright when he talks about strictly naval events and wanders off into his Britain above all else attitude when he ventures into the body politic. I do however eagerly await his next book, "How Great Britain won the Pacific Naval War." I would suggest his next book be "Yorktown a British Victory." Obviously I am having a bit of fun at his expense. I don't think we need to change results boxes due to anyone's perceptions. We have a duty to present this war to the public as the historians see it. If the RS mainstream historians change their view then I am going to back it to the hilt. Not until then. Tirronan (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the various opinions of historians are already included in the article. The info box shows the actual treaty result of status quo ante bellum. The book by Carl Benn should not be used as already stated it is a flimsy undocumented book. Benn actually claims the United States "demanded" Canada that is simply not true. Dwalrus (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, but my point is, the info box indicates a stalemate, which is a US viewpoint. The debate over who won the war has been going on for 200 years. Canada sees it as a Canadian Victory. The US sees it as a stalemate. If the infobox indicates a stalemate as a result - than that's the US viewpoint and it's not NPOV.

Then we can take the word stalemate out and leave it at status quo ante bellum since that is the actual the result according to the Treaty of Ghent. There is no need to give a variety of points of views in the info box as they are already included in the article.Dwalrus (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The actual military result, as to whether it was a victory or a defeat, is disputed, and should be reflected as per Battle_of_Ia_Drang.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Most Canadian scholars now say "stalemate." eg: John H. Thompson, a Canadian & a diplomatic specialist [US "repelled British amphibious assaults on coastal cities. In this sense, the War of 1812 was a decisive dead heat that confirmed the post Revolutionary military stalemate"] Rjensen (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not a U.S. view that there was no winner, it is the consensus of historians, including Americans, UK and Canadian. In fact, some U.S. writers said the U.S. won, but that view has little acceptance either. TFD (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

TFD (talk) - do you have an RS for that statement? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, your reference to Battle_of_Ia_Drang is misleading. We are talking about an entire war and not just a single battle. The War of 1812 was ended by the Treaty of Ghent and, unless I've miss it, the Battle of Ia Drang did not end with a treaty. Dwalrus (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not really relevant that the Battle_of_Ia_Drang had no treaty, because even if it did have a treaty, it would still have the same information there that is there now. The Infobox is for Military results,and also possibly effects of the war, some as a result of treaties, some not. It is not solely for Treaty results. So WW1 and WW2, both wars, and both with treaties, have their military results there. In the case of WWI and WW2 this is both "Allied Victory". There is a difference between "military outcome" (ie disputed victory, Loss for one side, stalemate, decisive victory") and treaty outcome or the outcome of negotitations (which might be Unconditional surrender, conditional surrender, or as in this case, Status quo ante bellum). It's fine for the negotiated treaty outcome to be in the article, but they are in the wrong place. That's where the military outcome should be.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously nationalistic historians tend to promote "their" sides of the conflict; I've seen American historians claiming the war was an American victory, British historians claiming Britain won, and Canadians claiming Canada won (even though it didn't really exist at the time). That's why British historians like Latimer tend to credit naval operations. Fringe nationalists exist for any war, but most historians support status quo ante vellum. Incidentally, it's weird that Thompson uses the phrase "decisive dead heat", which is contradictory... a dead heat cannot be decisive. Rwenonah (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In popular writing, one may see all those views. But scholarship, at least in the English-speaking world, is not divided by national boundaries. TFD (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There are historians from different nationalities supporting different viewpoints, I agree. I wasn't saying there wasn't. What I am saying is, there is a pattern for British authors to support one viewpoint, and probably, if you look at numbers, a pattern for more American historians to support another. Nationalism *very* much is a factor, no doubt why so many Americans see it as a stalemate, and so Canada sees it as a win, however we still need to reflect *both* these viewpoints in a Wikipedia article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the infobox needs to have the view that the war is seen as a Canadian victory by some people.... that the results of the war are disputed. There is no one viewpoint, there are two - *both* need to be included for the reader. The viewpoint that the war ended as a stalemate, and that the only effect was that everything returned to normal, is a US centric view and not NPOV. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, there is no pattern for British authors to support on viewpoint. You can check the discussion threads and see that no one has shown that. So have a mainstream view of historians and a few views in popular writing that have no support in scholarship. We are following WP:WEIGHT correctly. Views that have no support in reliable sources should not be given a false equivalency. TFD (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There *is* a pattern for UK authors, and a pattern for US authors, on the war of 1812, and in fact, it's been exacerbated by the bicentanary.

• "Several British scholars have indeed studied their country’s second clash with the United States, and concluded that it was a triumphant one for John Bull. American historians, however, take umbrage at the suggestion that they “think” they won; the war, these scholars contend, can indeed be regarded as an American victory, at least in a limited sense. The explosion of literature for the war’s bicentennial has only exacerbated these trends, and two of the most recent works offer excellent examples of the ongoing fight over who can claim victory in the War of 1812." - Sheppard, Thomas "Dubious Victories: Refighting the War of 1812" Essays in History University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Issue: 2013, Quarter:FallDeathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

" Views that have no support in reliable sources should not be given a false equivalency".... surely you are not saying that Arthur, Lamber, Latimer and J.C.A. Stagg are not reliable sources? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

People are not reliable sources, published works are, and try to avoid sarcastic expressions such as "surely you are not serious?" You can read through previous discussions where these authors' works have been brought up. Your article is a book review and therefore not a reliable source.[1] Its author says, "Two of the most recent monographs on the conflict build strong arguments for unambiguous victory, but disagree as to which side can claim that victory." You need a source that explains the degree to which their books have been accepted by historians. TFD (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, to be fair, I did actually remove that comment after I wrote it, as you can see. The published sources are:

• (1) Ron Latimer "1812 War with America 2007
• (2) Brian Arthur "How Britain Won the War of 1812" 2011 and
• (3) Andrew Lambert "The Challenge 2012

There are other non Americans, as well that support the British victory aspect - J.C.A. Stagg, Mr. Madison’s War: Politics, Diplomacy, and Warfare in the Early American Republic, 1783-1830 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 501, 509. and ::*Carl Ben in "The War of 1812" Osprey 2002. Plenty of others, these are just the ones I have to hand. The Thomas Sheppard article is nominally a book review, however the author is reputable, discusses the topic, it's in an academic journal, and I think it would be acceptable as a RS under wikipedia rules. The article is more about the national viewpoints than specifically reviewing the books, and it references a number of books, not just the books reviewed. Did you have an RS that says there is no national trend for authors currently in writing for the war of 1812? All I am establishing here is that there are (two) different viewpoints on the outcome of the war, because currently it would seem mainly the US viewpoint is pervasive here in the infobox, and that is a NPOV issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, we had extensive discussions already about all these authors. Could you please read through them, so that I do not have to copy and paste. You can start with Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?. (Click on it to go to the page.) TFD (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I just would like to clarify, is this material you would like me to read challenging their opinions on the war, or their abilities as scholars? because that is not what I am arguing about. I'm just pointing out a pattern in UK historians, rather than discussing how people feel about them as scholars. (I'm happy to go and read material to save you cuting and pasting, just want to clarify why).

As far as I know, the fact that we can differentiate pattersn with UK scholars supporting one view, and US the other, is something that hasn't been discussed in Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?..so it is something new to be discussed here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You have always subscribed to the views of history like it was some sort of voting gallery by nationality. I'm going to state this flat out. That is not the way that we set results boxes in Wikipedia. You have wasted far too much of too many peoples time with this CRAP. The result box is going to stay where the historiography puts it. I am not a fan of WIKI LAWYER-ing to get your way. We have just recently had out on this subject and I damn well refuse to play your game across 14 pages like you have done in the past. GO FIND SOMETHING USEFUL TO DO WITH YOUR TIME!Tirronan (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You know Tirronan (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC) that is really poor form. I've come here legitimately, because I think there are NPOV issues in the infobox. You shouldn't be personally abusing people on here, if you disagree with the content, take it out on the content, but there is no need to personally attack people. At the end of the day, we are all volunteers on here, trying to improve Wikipedia (though we may not agree on how to improve it). You may need to read this WP:NPADeathlibrarian (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Outcome box, in order to make it NPOV and include both perspectives of the outcome of the war, I would suggest:

Result:

• Disputed Victory/Stalemate

• Status quo ante bellum with no boundary changes
• Invasion of Canada repulsed
• Military stalemate
• Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy

What do people think of this as a compromise? - I think this shows both sides of the coin, and is more NPOV Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

ok but add: Add: "British invasions of U.S. repulsed" Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Result:

• Disputed Victory/Stalemate

• Status quo ante bellum with no boundary changes
• US Invasion of Canada repulsed
• British invasions of U.S. repulsed
• Military stalemate
• Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy

Good call, Rjensen how is this?. Not sure if the order is important, I think important to put the status quo at the top?. The idea here is, there is more

information for the reader, and it reflects the main content of the article Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

OK -- I would make invasionS plural in both cases. order is fine. Rjensen (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually support that since that is exactly what happened. As for my outburst Death, constant trolling does that to folks.Tirronan (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is nothing more than what is already in the body of the article so I don't see a problem with it. Dwalrus (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Awesome guys, I'll make the changes, with new, improved, plurality. Very glad we could all work it out. Hopefully this will placate people wanting changes, and head off debates in the future. Thanks very much for your time and input, it's a great article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Grundy statement

I found Heller's ref to Grundy -- there is no page 1806 --it's page 98 and the correct cite = John Roderick Heller (2010). Democracy's Lawyer: Felix Grundy of the Old Southwest. p. 98. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How to protect against vandalism

What is weird is that the person who did the vandalism is a registered user not the typical Anonymous. Is there any method to protect against this? Although, I am surprised how quickly the problem was found and Undone!! Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dead link

I'm very new to Wikipedia stuff so apologies if i posted this in the wrong place.

There is a link in this article that states

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

But the link is dead and leads only to a Wikipedia "page not found" message.

Just thought someone should know

92.18.173.105 (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed now. Rwenonah (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead too long, again

I see this has been debated to death, but I'm going to say again that the lead is way way way way way way too long. I understand that those of you who feel ownership over this article believe that every little detail is so incredibly important that it must be included in the lead. But try to step back for a minute and think about some poor reader who wants the basics. Do we really need to know from the very start that Spain was involved but not in a major way? Do we really need to know from the very start that the British occupied eastern Maine? Do we really need to know from the very start that the Americans tried to take Montreal? We don't need to put every single detail and battle in the lead. That's what the rest of the article is for. You are driving away your readers. That is not a good thing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the lede is the work of one user and his socks who added a lot of this information without any consensus. My personal favourite was when he added mention of the Battle of Fayal, a minor skirmish that didn't even happen in North America. But your examples are crappy; Spain's involvement was arguably the most important consequence of the war since it led to the only actual exchange of territory, and the American attacks on Montreal were a key part of their invasion strategy. I think readers are better served by a fairly detailed lede than by a short one that forces them to search through the much longer and more complex article for details. also, practice what you preach; did you really need six "ways", or would one suffice? Rwenonah (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I also find the first sentence entirely confusing. Who were the enemies and who were allies? It is not clear in that first sentence which is which and who is on which side. For example, the sentence says 'North American colonies,' which links to the article "British North America." In that article, British North America includes the "Thirteen Colonies" (which later formed the "United States" according to the Thirteen Colonies article), yet the first sentence includes "The United States of America" as another of the participants of the War of 1812. On the face, this doesn't make sense since clearly the Thirteen Colonies were the original British colonies, yet the United States of America was the later result of the war for independence from Britain. Why not simplify the wording to make it clear, rather than trying to cram way too much information into one sentence. The same is true of the Lead, as mentioned above: too much is trying to be crammed into what should be a straightforward introduction to the entire article. This results also in pushing the Table of Contents down, off the page making navigation more difficult and time consuming. Perhaps some bona fide historians can contribute a more succinct introduction / Lead for the article? Jdevola (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

English variants in Wikipedia

WP:ENGVAR is intended to have articles written in the selected variant of English as used by the people of the country in general not as reflected in a few unnamed sources. As you may have noticed I did not change the spelling in the title of one of the references because it was spelled that way in the original, but in normal sentences, the correct spelling should be used. Many Canadian writers books are published in the US with US spelling which is not necessarily the same as that used in the Canadian publications and usage in Canada. Canadian dictionaries and teaching is that the preferred spelling of "honour" is with a U. Other words such a car "tire" are spelled in the American way instead of the British "tyre". So to follow the policy, we should use the preferred system (Honours system was not the only such usage, just an example to demonstrate the spelling and so the point that it is irrelevant to the article are egregious). Here is a Canadian government site discussing the word http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/wrtps/index-eng.html?lang=eng&lettr=indx_catlog_h&page=9ITAewQInL90.html#zz9ITAewQInL90 Dabbler (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

it is FALSE to say "Canadian dictionaries and teaching is that the preferred spelling of "honour" is with a U." you have zero cites regarding HONOR/HONOUR. I looked at numerous leading Canadian presses --see next entry. The point here is that we are using a term ONLY to refer to American usage, How important was "American honour" -- no American ever asked, so it's silly to select the British spelling. Rjensen (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Try a few more citations from scholarly journals & books published by Canadians in Canada: 1) "'The Governor General's Literary Awards were instituted in 1936 to honor the accomplishments of distinguished English-Canadian writers" [Introduction to Canadian Literature By David Stouck]; 2) Scholarly article title = "Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: Honor in International Relations." Canadian Slavonic Papers; 3) "Canadian hall of fame honors two former railroaders, a city and a technology.

Periodical" Canadian Rail: The Magazine of Canada's Railway Heritage 4) "how the Silver Cross honors sacrifice and military service" Canadian Military History ; 5) "honors the contributions of Cree Indian soldiers to Canada's efforts in World War I" Studies in Canadian Literature; 6) "Alberta...was named so in honor of the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria" Oxford Companion to Canadian History.; 7) "were denied the Military Cross. The denial of the higher honor was based on gender inequality" Canadian Military History. 8) "Hall of Fame in 2002 in honor of his flying skills," The Journal of the Canadian Aviation Historical Society; 9) " produced beautiful embroidery to honor the glory of God." Journal of Canadian Art History. ; 10) "memorial lecture in honor of the late John Graham" Canadian Public Policy....lots of distinguished Canadian editors & editorial boards at work in history here. Rjensen (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

honor and honour = both good in Canadian English

Honour is the British variation; Honor is the American, Canadians use both all the time. for example editors & scholars at leading Canadian publishers use it. From books from University of Toronto Press 1) re war of 1812 "Was it the product of insulted national honor?" [2007]; 2) in 1813 Quebec militia leader Lt Col Henry Cull said "our defense would redound much to our Honor or the advantage of the Country"; 3) "that the Indians must honor their own religion." (2013) 4) "pageant material to add more colour to the Fort George ceremony, and to honor the Indian people" [2002]; 5) "Surely the Canadians would honor their obligations to the Sioux, just as the Sioux had always honored their own" [2009]. from MQUP Press 6) "if it was compatible with the honor of a civilized nation to suffer defenceless prisoners to be murdered" (1997); 7) " I had the honor of reopening at Kingston the large fort which has recently been restored." (1976); 8) " he had done his best to honor old pledges to these " [2010]. U of Alberta Press "A Provincial rustic sign honoring Thompson is located near Rocky Mountain ..." [2010]; 9) "A penalty of £1,000 was specified for failure to honor the agreement, " [1973]. etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have never denied that both are used by Canadians but current as opposed to historical style guides say that "honour" is preferred and cherry picking individual cases where someone has used the other spelling is not proof that it is preferred. Show me any reputable Canadian Style Guide that actually states that "honor" is the preferred spelling in Canadian English and then you have the beginnings of a case.

The fact that "American honor" is being discussed in the general text does not mean that American spelling should be used in that particular case. The whole article is written in one language variant, not the bits that the relate to the US in one variant and the bits that relate to the other participants in another. By your logic any discussion of the Napoleonic Wars should be half written in French.

Canadian Press Style Guide - CP Style uses the Oxford English Dictionary as its authoritative guide for spelling. Where alternative spellings are listed, use the first.

McMaster University Style Guide - -our/-or endings Always use “Canadian” spellings (labour, behaviour, flavour, etc. but honorary not honourary)

Canadian Style - Canadian government style guide "The recommended spelling authority is a reliable Canadian dictionary such as the Canadian Oxford or Gage Canadian Dictionary. It is important to choose one and use it consistently. Both publications are based on research into Canadian usage, contain specifically Canadian terms and reflect the usage of most federal government departments and agencies more closely than do American or British dictionaries. When they list two spellings for a word in the same entry, choose the one entered first. When two spellings are given separate entries, choose the primary spelling, which is the one followed by the definition (the variant simply refers the reader to the primary entry). For scientific and technical words not in Gage or the Canadian Oxford, check Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. In light of these recommendations, use the following variant spellings: endings in ize, ization, our, re, single l (as in instil) and ce; single l in words such as enrolment; ll in travelled, etc.; and e for digraphs (exceptions: aesthetic and onomatopoeic).

Dabbler (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly "or" endings are sometimes used. The newspapers used them for many years but relented because after readers' complaints. The first example above is from America's Revolution, 1750-1820. It could be the author used U.S. spelling because his book was distributed in the U.S. The 4th example, from Living with Strangers: The Nineteenth-century Sioux and the Canadian-American Borderlands was originally published by the University of Nebraska Press in the U.S. Note too that the University of Toronto Press says, "Toronto Buffalo London". So "or" endings, while acceptable alternative spellings, are not preferred. TFD (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Historians views

hi guys,

I am really sorry for the recent spamming, I didnt even realize there was a talk page to go through regarding revisions. Any ways, heres an alternative historians viewpoint which argues the opposite of the one thats provided.

proposed content

George C. Daughan, however, suggests that the US achieved enough of its war goals to claim a victorious result of the conflict, and subsequent impact it had on the negotiations in Ghent. Where Latimer's argument centers on the failure of the US to force the British to rescind the Orders of Council (specifically with regards to the impressment of sailors), Daughan uses official correspondences from President Madison to the delegates at Ghent strictly prohibiting negotiations with regards to maritime law. "Madison's latest dispatches [arrived July 25-27, 1814] permitted them [the delegates] to simply ignore the entire question of maritime rights. Free trade with liberated Europe had already been restored, and the Admiralty no longer needed impressment to man its warships. The president felt that with Europe at peace the issues of neutral trading rights and impressment could safely be set aside in the interests of obtaining peace... Thus, from the start of the negotiations, the disagreements that started the war and sustained it were acknowledged by both parties to be no longer important." The British never rescinding the Orders of Council should not be viewed as a defeat for the Americans, considering the official stance of the US delegates at the meeting understood it to be an irrelevent issue, an unpredictable result of the events which occurred in Europe. In addition, the successful defense of Baltimore, Plattsburgh, and Fort Erie (a strategic fortress located in Upper Canada on the Niagara River, and occupied during the 3rd and most successful offensive into Canada) had very favorable influence on the negotiations for the Americans and prompted several famous responses from both sides. Henry Clay wrote to the delegates in October of 1914, "for in our own country, my dear sir, at last must we conquer the peace." With growing pressure in Britain, The Duke of Wellington when asked to command the forces in America wrote to Liverpool on November 9th, 1814 "I confess that I think you have no right, from the state of the war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have not been able to carry... [the war] into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack [Fort Erie]... Why Stipulate for uti possidetis? The argument that the US failed to capture any Canadian territory that influenced the negotiations is an outdated and highly criticized position. The Edinburgh Review, a British newspaper who had remained silent about the war with America for two years wrote "the British government had embarked on a war of conquest, after the American government had dropped its maritime demands, and the British had lost. It was folly to attempt to invade and conquer the United States. To do so would result in the same tragedy as the first war against them, and with the same result." References

I would also like to invite anyone to my talk page where I am being harassed by a member Rwenonah here. is there a way to report?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spitfire740#Problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire740 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Spitfire740 9/18/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire740 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Spitfire740: You've added way too much content just to push this one author's view. Please scale this back. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also note that the article is in Canadian English, not American English as here. And you can sign your posts using four tildes rather than getting the weird "unsigned" message. And finally, I have no idea why you're quoting primary sources in a section about "historian's views", but it's contrary to the section's purpose, obviously. Any addition shouldn't include those. Rwenonah (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Spitfire. A few things because it is obvious that you are new to the community. Removing sections without discussion will most likely result in reversion. Secondly this article sections are usually the result of a lot of discussion and reaching a consensus. It is about as personal as a block of wood. One thing that every editor here has to face is that if you are not willing to have your work edited you probably are in the wrong place. There are historians with alternate views. Their inclusion is pretty much mandatory. You might not like it but we all have to live with it. A thick skin isn't required but it sure is helpful. My 1st few edits were reverted almost before I finished writing it. I learned how to write here and I am sure you will too. Just have a bit of willingness to learn as you go along and it will work out.Tirronan (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

hese sections need to present different views in accordance with their acceptance and are best sourced people writing about historians' views. We are not allowed to insert our own comparisons of different historians' views. BTW, impressment was effectively ended by the House of Lords decision in 1824, which recognized that since U.S. independence, Americans were no longer British subjects. TFD (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Spitfire740 This addition needs to be reverted. There are multiple viewpoints about who won the war of 1812, and inserting a huge block of text, with direct quotes unbalances the section.

Some of us spent months debating a balanced section on the Historian's viewpoints, this is not balanced at all. Does anyone mind if I revert to the previous version before Spitfire (who appears to have left us????? Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

- Guys, as this was inserted largely without discussion, and as Rwenonah and TFD points out, there are quite a few issues with this inserted section (including personal views and quotes from primary sources) and Spitfire740 appears to be not responding and looks like his account is gone, I'm going to revert to the version before he inserted this. Let me know if any issues with that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox - again

Guys, this has been dealt with before, but the infobox should not indicate a "stalemate". That is a US centric viewpoint. It was seen as a Victory by Canada and a stalemate by the US. Wikipedia should follow Neutral_point_of_view. The precedent to follow here is the Battle_of_Ia_Drang. The Wikipedia page says there Result "Both sides claimed victory". I would recommend "Result: Disputed". Please let me know if you have any issues, I'm happy to change it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Before doing so, you should read the extensive archives on this. Calidum ¤ 03:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Canadian First Nations suffered a major defeat--they are integral to the history of Canada. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much you know about First Nations Canadians (judging by what you said above, little), but the war had comparatively little impact on them. The Six Nations had, and maintained, a large reservation in Upper Canada, while the Sioux and the Ojibwe were largely left alone for another two decades until they signed the Numbered Treaties. Generally, tribes in British-claimed land maintained the status quo with regard to power for some time after the war. American Indians, by contrast, (e.g. the Shawnee, Creek, or Cherokee) were abandoned at the negotiations and, after the war, expelled from their lands, subjected to the Indian Removal era, and otherwise screwed over. I've never seen anyone claim the major tribal elements of Tecumseh's Confederacy (Shawnee, Fox, Sauk, etc.), or the Creek, who were the main two groups defeated during the war, as Canadian; they had been deported to Indian Territory before Canada even existed. They don't consider themselves to be and never have. The US and Canada have never considered them Canadian.. Your comment is just factually untrue. Rwenonah (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Calidum Aye, good advice, - I've been writing on this page for a fair while, so I know a bit of the history of this page (and don't write here lightly as it's only the bravest Wikipedia editors that take on the war of 1812! :-). I was previously involved in a discussion (in May 2016) where we agreed to have both the Canadian and US viewpoints included in the infobox. However the Canadian viewpoint (that is, that they won the war, repelling the US invasion) has since unfortunately been removed...thus the issue with Neutral_point_of_view.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC). If anyone has an issue with me inserting something that reflects both countries viewpoints, or has any suggestions, let me know. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There are three Canadian groups: the First Nations lost badly, everyone agrees. The Anglo and Franco elements wound up with the status quo ante-bellum--which many Anglos today see as a "victory" because they did not become Americans. Francophones largely ignore the war in 21st century or call it a draw, say the Assoc of Canadian Studies surveys. Return to the status quo is the usual definition of a draw. see for more Canadian views Rjensen (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and of course, the American Indians, though living in the US, lost. We ultimately have two sides, more than 100 years later, still with a difference of opinion. To quote your reference RJensen "But it has not stopped the United States from claiming to this day that they won this conflict between the US and the colonies of Great Britain to the north. By the importance that Canada has given to this war over the years and in particular in 2012, Canada has also laid claim to victory." Cuccioletta, D. (2012). THE WAR OF 1812: WHO WON THE WAR? THE DEBATE CONTINUES. Canadian Issues / Thèmes Canadiens, 14-17.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the War of 1812 itself... modern Canadian popular opinion on the topic is at best a side issue. The results section of the infobox should represent what the reliable sources indicate actually happened at the time. Modern Canadian views on the topic (including a reference to a poll that found 37% of Canadians were of the opinion that it was a Canadian victory) are discussed in the Memory and historiography section of the article, which seems an appropriate amount of weight. --Noren (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Noren Noren, if you are saying the infobox should reflect what the opinions were at the time, they were divided at the time, the same as they are now. Canadians believed they won the war at the time, and they still do. The US believed the war was a stalemate (and some I think thought they won the war). Even if you look at modern historians, there are differing opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the range of opinions, not push one side's view.

...Thus..... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SfDFockS3zU/VbaqUUtWR4I/AAAAAAAAbr0/hKItRp-ma3M/s1600/DouglasCoupland-PublicArt-Toronto-Culture-ThePurpleScarf-Melanie.Ps%2B%25289%2529.JPG Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not think the results section of the infobox is the appropriate place for any survey of public opinion, then or now, Canadian or otherwise. That's the opposite of what I was attempting to convey. --Noren (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As with the Battle_of_Ia_Drang, where it was not clear who won, and the Vietnamese and the US both believe they did, so Wikipedia reflects both viewpoints as per Neutral_point_of_view Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue is that in 2016 you have to appreciate that the US, Canada & Britain all secured most of their main objectives. The trouble comes from zero-sum thinking (If A wins, then B must be a loser.) The US secured honor & control of the Midwest; Canada assured continued British control; the main British goal was defeat of Napoleon & they were very happy indeed to get that. Rjensen (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The official result was a return to the "status quo ante bellum", the state before the war as it applied to land transfers, i.e. there were no appreciable transfers. There was no obvious victory of winning armies marching through conquered territories or abject defeats with beaten foes prostrate before the victors paying reparations. Canada was not occupied or annexed despite the US perhaps having some ideas in that direction, so British defensive aims were satisfied. The US no longer had to contend with blockade and pressing of men, but this was less a result of the War of 1812 and more that British needs diminishing with the end of the war against France. The Ontario colonists made themselves a nice patriotic myth of the local militia victory against the invading hordes, which bears very little resemblance to what actually happened but did raise nationalist feelings which eventually led to Confederation. As is stated the only ones who really lost were the indigenous population living in the US claimed lands who were displaced and later overrun, some finding refuge in British controlled territory. The reason the war ended was that no side could see a way of gaining much from the situation, the British wre war weary and did not want an expensive colonial war. The Americans were suffering economically from the effective blockade and were not looking likely to be able to gain any territory from the British and the indigenous peoples' needs and desires were basically ignored by the colonials. So whether "Stalemate" is the right word or not, neither the British nor the Americans really gained a victory except that some "bad things" either didn't happen or stopped happening. Dabbler (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

- Guys, we could argue for 100 years about whether we personally think it was a victory for Canada, or a stalemate. People have been for 100 years, and they probably will continue to do. However, that's not important. As editors for a wikipedia article, we need to show the various viewpoints. While one viewpoint is shown in the infobox, that favoring the US view, the Canadian viewpoint is not. Our own personal interpretations are not important, in this regard at least. The article needs to reflect *both* prevailing views.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It will be 200 years or until people realize that a psychological pride & sense of "victory" was a very powerful and real result in both the US and Canada. Britain had exactly the same pride re defeating Napoleon. Rjensen (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You have more faith in humanity than I doRjensen ! I think people will be arguing about it forever!:-). However, like Battle_of_Ia_Drang, it's a good case study of an historical conflict where there is no real winner, and what happens in Wikipedia and historical commentary as a result.... so the situation is sort of interesting in that regard. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of battles are controversial re win/lose/draw....but very few wars have this level of controversy. Rjensen (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Deathlibrarian is mistaken about the purpose of the infobox. It is not to "show the various viewpoints" but to reflect the best understanding of the result of the war. I do not see "stalemate" as reflecting the viewpoint of Americans (which is probably that it was an American victory especially following the Battle of New Orleans and the various frigate actions) nor does it indicate a British-Canadian loss, but a reasonably accurate and succinct description of the actual outcome, and I write as a British Canadian.Dabbler (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC) As I've said before, we all have our personal opinions, but where there is divergent opinions, as is the case here, they should be reflected in the infobox - what we think doesn't really matter - fact remains, it is seen as a victory in Canada, that was in the infobox, but was actually removed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the war was a draw meets neutrality because that is what reliable sources say. The U.S. demands, such as the end to impressment were all met but would have been met or had already been met without the war. The Tory legend that the U.S. lost is based on the assumption that their intention had been to annex Upper Canada, but few if any modern historians in Canada, the U.S. or UK see that as being a U.S. objective. While the Indians were not "Canadians" (Canada did not exist and the term "Canadian" was used to refer to French inhabitants of Lower Canada.) Indians belonged to separate nations (and still do), but fought under the allegiance of either the King or the U.S. The demand for a separate Indian state in upper New York State not under American or British administration, which the British had championed, was abandoned after the war and henceforth all Indians would find themselves living within U.S. or British (later Canadian) territory. TFD (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, TFD (talk) no. The article itself already expresses that there are different viewpoints on who won the war, whether it was a draw for the US, or a victory for Canada. The result that the war was a draw not the only opinion.... plenty of Canadians will tell you otherwise. The article itself indicates the view by some historians that the war was a Victory for Canada, see the section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Historians.27_views and that in terms of various nations, Canada sees it as a victory:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Canadian Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What am I supposed to read? "In recent decades the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate." There are of course in interpreting history sometimes minority views, but what is important is the degree of acceptance in the academic community. TFD (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well for starters: "In British North America (which would become the Dominion of Canada in 1867), the War of 1812 was seen by Loyalists as a victory, as they had claimed they had successfully defended their country from an American takeover:" and "Historians have differing and complex interpretations of the war" Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Also Four deuces, you said "Saying that the war was a draw meets neutrality because that is what reliable sources say." Are you implying that the historians that argue that the war was a victory for Canada are unreliable?...and that only the sources supporting the US centric view are reliable?. Because I wouldn't agree with that, and certainly don't see that as a balanced viewpoint.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I would also argue that the degree of how an event is seen from a national basis, is also important....not just the view from the academic community. The national view is certainly relevant here, and as I've noted before, a good example is how the infobox with the Battle_of_Ia_Drang reflects opposing views of a conflict. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Although different scholars of different nationalities may view events differently, none of that matters in determining which views prevail. BTW I recommend The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850 by David Mills.[2] Among other things it explains the origins of the Loyalist myth. Few Upper Canadians were of Loyalist origin and they did not form a distinct group in the province, but Tory elites (few of whom were Loyalists either) created a myth about 1812 in order to maintain loyalty to the King and obedience to the local oligarchy. The myth would later be adopted by the Left in Ontario, but scholarship has shown that most of it was not based on fact. The same is true of much of colonial and early U.S. history. Most inhabitants in 1812 were late loyalists who were victimized by both sides in the war and by the Family Compact following it. TFD (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

To write that the war is somehow only noted by important/reliable sources as a draw is incorrect. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC) "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" WP:NPOV Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and those minority views are discussed in the article. There exists no requirement that every minority view be discussed in the infobox.--Noren (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Noren The article should represent all views on the topic, not just one country's views, and that should include the infobox, as it sums up the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What has in effect been done is that only the actual results of the war are listed. Something which I really like. As a suggestion why not put a link to the section on what the historians think in the results box? The real truth is that no one power really had a grudge point to linger on, well except the Indians. So we are left with the interpretations of the historians. The point being that except for the Indians, every single party got what it really wanted and had to give up some absurd wants.

I'll give some examples:

• There existed factions in Britain that wanted the US broken up and reabsorbed into the Commonwealth.
• Others wanted the American mercantile competition curtailed or outright eliminated.
• Some factions in Britain wanted the US contained between a Indian buffer state and the Mississippi River.
• Above all else Britain wanted the all trade between Napoleonic France and its allies and America stopped.
• Losing the Canadian Colonies simply could not be allowed under any circumstances.

Britain got 3 of the 5. (Note that America replaced every single merchant hull lost in the war in a single year. A recession in 1817 wiped out most of the overseas mercantile trade and investments transferred to internal trade/manufacturing/internal infrastructure. Thus was not war related.)

• America thought it was going to trade with anyone at anytime regardless of belligerent status in a war.
• America thought it was going to dictate to the largest fleet in the world without a navy.
• America thought it was going to conquer Canada without an real Army or real Generals.
• America thought it was going to lose the war.
• America had to retain control of its own territory
• America had to control its own foreign policy
• America had to resist breaking down into regional government. (This issue had given rise to British hopes that the country would fracture and could be assimilated. It had existed since before the revolution and wouldn't be settled until 1865).

America got 4 of 7 and in reality got 5. (Impressment by the British Navy ceased after the end of the war. Some claim that this was was the result of the end of the war but the Hundred Days had already reared its ugly head. Despite ongoing screaming need by the British Navy for more seamen the Royal Navy went to pains to never stop an American ship let alone impress sailors. All arguments to the contrary Britain had ceased impressing American sailors.)

@Deathlibrarian, I'd take it as a personal favor if you would take a day and read The Civil War of 1812 to get an appreciation of just how impossibly complex this conflict really was. It was shocking to me. This isn't about popular views it is about the accurate summation of history and anything else is fausting off a lie to sell to the public. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. All the Wiki Lawyering in the world isn't going to change that.

Anyway to wrap this up the results of the war are far too complex to put in an info box, instead put a link to the section where the views of historians are explained and be done with this.Tirronan (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tirronan, once again I will point out that there isn't any point in rehashing our own personal interpretations/commentary of the war - the two differing views are firmly established, have been for 100 years, and us talking about them here isn't going to change that. This is a topic people love to talk about, and people know about, but as wikipedians, it's our job to represent what the commonly established views are. While I acknowledge that more historians think one war, there is a recognised body of historians that view it in the other. And there is a cultural split between two countries, both parties involved, who have a different viewpoint. *Both* these opinions should expressed in the infobox, the same as they should be expressed in the article. I reiterate, that the Canadia viewpoint was in the past expressed in the infobox, but was taken out.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

.....And I have a copy of The Civil War of 1812, and read it some time ago, but thank you for the suggestion.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

To try to get some focus here, and I agree with Tirronan, there is no need to fill the infobox with huge amounts of text to get across the message, I suggest:

"Result - Disputed: Tactical Stalemate or Canadian Victory." What do people think of that? Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that the nation of Canada wouldn't exist for quite some time and the primary belligerents were the United States and United Kingdom, I think that would be false. For that matter, if the location where British units were stationed is somehow relevant, I'd have to point out that the greatest British successes came from the naval units stationed in Bermuda. --Noren (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The result is not disputed, it was a draw. In the treaty ending the war, neither party gained or lost anything.[3] With the earlier end of the Napoleonic Wars, most of the causes of the war had disappeared. Also, "Canada" was not a party to the war, nor was there a Canadian state at the time. TFD (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that it was a victory for the British or the Bermudans or anyone. There were multiple errors made, I chose to address just the 'Canadian' one. --Noren (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Victory? No, it wasn't even a country at that time. Nor did the United States of America declare war on the Canadian colonies. That isn't a personal view it is an historical fact.Tirronan (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair point Noren and Tirronan - how about "Result - Disputed: Tactical Stalemate or British Victory." Or alternatively "Result - Disputed: Tactical Stalemate or British North American Victory." Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

More like strategic stalemate, since no sustained offensive operation by either side was anything short of tragic. Which puts paid to any victory by either side. This isn't personal Death, it just hard to reach any other conclusion. The point that you are making, and it is valid, is that at least some Citizens of Canada see this as an American defeat. I agree that from their view point it was. However, that isn't history and that isn't sustainable by the vast majority of mainstream historiography and I can't change that. Might I make a suggestion and just run an AFD and live with the results. This blogging isn't going to change anything. I'll live with the result as well. You might notice that I have never once changed the infobox to my memory at least.Tirronan (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think that Canadians who consider the war a Canadian victory (I think it's 37% according to polls) do so more because they don't know much about the war then because they consider Canada to have won. This is especially true because most of the recent commemorations focused on Canadian victories. It's not a subject that excites passion in Canada: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/28/war-of-1812-ad-canada_n_1837244.html Rwenonah (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Part of me always wondered why anyone gets passionate about this silly assed war. These ancestors of ours are not recognizable to me. We had American and British citizens selling their countries out at the drop of a hat. The allied Indians thought nothing of robbing and killing their allied farmers because they could. Lets just say it was no countries shinning moment.Tirronan (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Tirronan is probably right, we aren't really getting anywhere with this, the constant blogging/discussion/interpretation of the actual war will just go on forever and nothing will be decided about the actual article. Hopefully everyone here has better things to do than be writing on the War of 1812 talk page!:-) We should move it to a mediation phase and I will be happy to live with the results as well. I might add, I'm just trying to get the infobox back to how it was in May, before the Canadian viewpoint was removed (not exactly sure when that happened or who removed it, I might flick back through the history out of interest). Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I have put in a request for mediation, I've added Tirronan as a party, as it was his suggestion, I hope that's ok. Rjensen Would you be interested in being part of it, as you are an Academic (if you have time?). I think you guys may have been involved in the previous mediation? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Another mediation???? I wrote the scholary history of the FIRST mediation on this article which went on forever and is now under challenge. take a look here. Rjensen (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how mediation would be helpful here. Debating opinions on the outcome will have no bearing on the article; we simply must follow the results given by the large majority of sources. Mediation isn't the best place to just list sources. Also, many others have been involved in this before; some, at least, probably haven't rejoined this latest round because they think it's been settled, not because they aren't interested. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• A D Monroe III hit the nail on the head - talked about alot...dont see change happening. That said.... perhaps a solution would be to link to a the article or a section "Epilogue of the wars outcome". Epilogues work well for Juvenile textbooks like Childress, Diana (2004). The War of 1812. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-8225-0800-7.. Hard to put this info in a small section of a small box....a link to to info may help our readers more then what we have there now. -- Moxy (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I was on the first mediation, and it wasn't a lot of fun, however it *did* resolve a major issue with the article, that is expressing the various viewpoints. And I think it did cut down on the number of angry Canadians and British people that would be disputing the results of the war on the talk page! It was hard but the people that worked on it should be proud, I think. It's normal to use mediation for situations like this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the results section of the infobox, it seems redundant to have 'Military stalemate' as a bullet point below 'Tactical Stalemate'. I propose deleting the 'Military stalemate' bullet point, leaving 'Tactical Stalemate' at the top. --Noren (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally disagree with "Tactical Stalemate". I think - I've never been totally clear on the whole tactics vs strategy thing - that tactics refers to the movement of units to attain immediate battlefield goals. It just seems patently impossible to describe a war with numerous fronts with little communication separated by huge distances - many of which were not in stalemate and in which one side had a distinct advantage at war's end, e.g. the British in Fort Bowyer - as being all locked in a stalemate at the tactical level. Military stalemate, or maybe "strategic stalemate", as in an inability to achieve war goals, or maybe just stalemate, seems better. Rwenonah (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing the heading to Military stalemate and removing the military stalemate bullet point sounds good to me. --Noren (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Tactics is something deployed on a battlefield to achieve a goal. Strategy is used in a more overarching manner to win a battle, campaign, or war. Tactical stalemate shouldn't be used at all in this meaning in the article and a new 1st I've changed the result box.Tirronan (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys I don't really want a mediation either, but do you really see this issue getting resolved here? There are a number of points to address, and I can't see them being addressed here... (1)Should a national view be put into the Infobox, or does the infobox only represent the view of the majority of historians? (2) Should the infobox reflect all views, or just the majority view? (3) Is there national bias in the historians, and does that correllate with the view of the majority of historians? (4) Does the implication of NPOV, for an article to represent all views, apply to the infobox or not? I really think mediation is the place to sort them, because they are in ways a confluence of interpretation of wikipedia policy, War of 1812 content interpretation, and possible national bias.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Also, I agree with Rwenonah and Tirronan... Strategic stalemate or I would have preferred simply military stalemate, but whatever, and no need for it to be repeated. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI- Request for mediatiation page is here request page Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Death with all due respect, I've rejected the mediation request. I refuse to spend yet more months on this with you again. I understand that you are passionate about changing the info box to represent a Commonwealth victory. But popular views are not history and we even included that for you. Trying to force us to change it doesn't work. I've done more research on this war than it ever deserved because I so wanted to find a way to say yes. As in if challenged I could write a fucking thesis on the war. I swear on my soul that the more you study this war the more muddled it gets. While I sympathize with folks that believe that Canada won the war, that still isn't history. An afd would allow the editor to vote and be done with it. I don't want to spend more time blogging on these pages to get to a result that lies to the public.Tirronan (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, no offence here, but please try and put yourself in my shoes. We have a situation where a body of Wikipedia editors are active on a page mainly from one country, and the viewpoint they oppose from another country is removed. Then when I attempt to put that viewpoint back in, it repeatedly gets blocked, bogged down & goes nowhere. Then when I attempt a mediation, that is blocked as well (though I do understand mediation, as Tirronansays, is lengthy and people may not have the time). This is breaking WP:NPOV and I think WP:BIAS. We have a US centric historical viewpoint, argued by US historians and supported by US wikipedians on this page, with the removal of a Canadian/British viewpoint, mainly supported by British Historians. I come in here and see all this...and I'm an Australian. How do you think this looks to me? Of course I am going to try to fix it, I wouldn't be doing my job as a Wikipedia editor in good faith if I didn't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days and I am amazed as a British Canadian that Deathlibrarian is still pushing his and the late Harper government's political POV that "Canada" won the war. It was a myth put about by the Family Compact after the war that the Canadian militia were instrumental in driving off the Yankee invaders. But in fact they played very little part in it. Almost all the fighting was done by the British regulars and the native fighters allied to them. The Harper government in its political attempt to try and transform Canada into a military nation pushed the old militia myth and the colonists contribution well beyond any reality. Any Canadian opinion has been well and truly tainted by this political POV pushing. Dabbler (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dabbler- Once again I'm not here to argue with you guys about which is the correct opinion for "who won the war". I am here to point out there are two opinions on who won the war... the US centric one, and the British/ Canadian centric one... and they should both be reflected here under NPOV. Whether you think they are correct, or what I think is correct, and why, ..... is completely irrelevant. As a Wikipedia author, you should still include other viewpoints for NPOV, even if you don't agree with them. Honestly, we have a US centric historical viewpoint, argued by US historians and supported by US wikipedians on this page, with the removal of a Canadian/British viewpoint, mainly supported by British Historians. How is this not an issue? Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And the last survey I saw 51% of the population believes the Apollo moon walks are a hoax, so we should put that down in that article because there are 2 views correct? Enough Death, you care not the least for anything but your own POV on this and it is beyond getting old.Tirronan (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Tirronan..as far as I know there aren't academic articles and books that support the Apollo moon walks as a hoax... but there are articles and books that support both the Canadian/British side and the US stalemate side. Both. From my perspective, I'm just trying to get rid of what I see as bias and NPOV in an article, and people just seem to be getting personal, so I think it best we leave it up to Wikipedia to look at any bias. If they don't think there is any, then that's that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree you need to take it up with the powers that be. Please to not bring this topic up on these pages again.Tirronan (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no problem Tirronan, I'm sure to everyone's great relief (as this talk section has gone on for long enough), I'm getting the removal of the Canadian viewpoint from the Infobox looked at for bias/NPOV. Will be good to have an external (and fresh) view I think. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

for the record there is no "Canadian viewpoint" among scholars. For the last 75 years we have not seen RS cluster by nationality. What we have seen is the sharp decline in British allegiance among Canadians. As for the Brits, there is wide agreement the Brits largely ignore the war. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong there Rjensen. If you look at historians, both in published monograph and articles, there is a definite opinion split on the results of the war correlating to nationality, and particular in the recent decades. I would say probably 80% British would see the war as a Canadian/British victory, 95% US history scholars would see it as either a stalemate, or a win for the US, and Canadian scholars are harder to work out....probably about 60% would see it as a win for Canada and 40% stalemate (but to be honest, I need to check that). If you have university based database access, just a cursory glance at the British historians publications will tell you that. In any case, I won't be continuing to write on this thread, as I'm otherwise getting the opinion looked at, with a fresh set of eyes, and I think we all agree typing on here hasn't really solved much....no need to continue the war! Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have read the Canadian & British historians and given papers at Canadian and British history conventions where I actually talked to them. I would say you made up those numbers. Rjensen (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I made up the numbers? Really? Rjensen Jesus... I have spent *many hours* tabulating historians that comment one way or the other, and cross referenced them by (1) Nationality and (2) who they thought won the war, or whether it was a draw. If you have looked at historians in a similiar way, and can't see any pattern, I would say it is either because you haven't looked at enough historian's viewpoints, or in fact you are just so biased you would prefer not to see a pattern Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, you would need a source that supports your analysis. It would reflect badly on historians generally if their viewpoints were as greatly affected by nationality as you suggest. BTW, I think most editors here are Canadian, hence Canadian English spelling (which is basically British spelling except for some words related to transportation and communications) is used. It probably explains too why there has been so much discussion on who won the war. TFD (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD There is, here: "Several British scholars have indeed studied their country’s second clash with the United States, and concluded that it was a triumphant one for John Bull. American historians, however, take umbrage at the suggestion that they “think” they won; the war, these scholars contend, can indeed be regarded as an American victory, at least in a limited sense. The explosion of literature for the war’s bicentennial has only exacerbated these trends, and two of the most recent works offer excellent examples of the ongoing fight over who can claim victory in the War of 1812." (Sheppard, Thomas "Dubious Victories: Refighting the War of 1812" Essays in History, Annual Journal of the Corcoran Department of History and the University of Virginia, Fall Issue, 2013) It does reflect badly that the country you come shapes how you saw the outcomes of the war of 1812, but that is nature of the Historiography of the War of 1812, so nothing new (unfortunately!)([User:Deathlibrarian|Deathlibrarian]] (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Also: "Did any nation win the War of 1812? Canadians are emphatic that America did not win, and the British agree. Americans usually argue that we really did win." ( JCA Stagg "Interview With War of 1812 Historian J.C.A. Stagg" History Net http://www.historynet.com/interview-with-war-of-1812-historian-j-c-a-stagg.htm )

You're not helping your argument by citing that Stagg article. Those, like Stagg, who believe it was a stalemate obviously don't believe the U.S. won. Stagg states:

"The United States didn’t lose, but the British couldn’t win it either."

"Canadians are emphatic that America did not win, and the British agree. Americans usually argue that we really did win. In terms of military outcomes, 'stalemate from mutual exhaustion' is the phrase to use. By 1815 it became extremely difficult to see how either side could have carried on the war for another year. In that sense nobody won."

The info box states it was a military stalemate and obviously Stagg agrees. Dwalrus (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Dwalrus... from my perspective, from how I see this, you're helping my argument, that the opinions largely break down on Historians nationalities. As you say, Stagg says 'stalemate from mutual exhaustion' is how he sees the war, not that the British won. That's the American perspective.... and... he's American.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Stagg is from New Zealand. He received his bachelor and masters degrees from University of Canterbury in New Zealand. He got his PhD from Princeton University in the US. He taught at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and then came to the University of Virignia. He has dual US and New Zealand citizenship. I would described him as international in background. Give it a rest Dwalrus (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Wholly misleading

The beginning of this articles tries to suggest that the British interdiction of US shipping was done to try to destroy a trading rival of which it was jealous. Where is the mention of the Continental System or that Britain was fighting for its national survival? This needs serious changes to reflect both sides of the argument--Godwhale (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you quote the passage that says that? TFD (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that it is this section which is very American POV centric.

Trade with France[edit]

In 1807, Britain introduced a series of trade restrictions via a series of Orders in Council to impede neutral trade with France, with which Britain was at war. The United States contested these restrictions as illegal under international law.[21] Also, historian Reginald Horsman states, "a large section of influential British opinion, both in the government and in the country, thought that America presented a threat to British maritime supremacy".[22]

The American merchant marine had come close to doubling between 1802 and 1810, making it by far the largest neutral fleet. Britain was the largest trading partner, receiving 80% of U.S. cotton and 50% of other U.S. exports. The British public and press were resentful of the growing mercantile and commercial competition.[23] The United States' view was that Britain's restrictions violated its right to trade with others.

Dabbler (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. And no, Britain in 1812 was no longer fighting for its national survival (Napoleon for years had given up on any thought of invasion and was now moving to attack Russia.) The statement summarizes the American position clearly. The British anti-France position has several article of its own. Rjensen (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If the British position is documented elsewhere in Wikipedia, then perhaps we should ahve at least a link to the article(s). Can you suggest where I should look? Dabbler (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. Is there anything inaccurate in it? Is there an alternative British view? TFD (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The passage seems to imply that the principal reason for the British action against American trade with France was fear of their merchant fleet. This seems to be an undue emphasis as the principal reason was to diminish the trade of France and its allies and the American ships were caught by the policy as were other neutrals. As the British were already the American's biggest trade partners, it is obvious that they were not overly concerned by American trade as such. Dabbler (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

One problem we are having is relying on memory rather than reliable published sources. Memory lets one mixup precarious dangers that Britain faced in 1805-1807, with its strong position 1812 when its survival was no longer on at stake. Historian Paul Langford, The eighteenth century: 1688-1815 (1976) p 228 explains the situation in the British government in 1812: The British ambassador in Washington brought affairs almost to an accommodation, and was ultimately disappointed not by American intransigence but by one of the outstanding diplomatic blunders made by a Foreign Secretary. It was Canning who, in his most irresponsible manner and apparently out of sheer dislike of everything American, recalled the ambassador Erskine wrecked the negotiations, a piece of most gratuitous folly. As a result, the possibility of a new embarrassment for Napoleon turned into the certainty of a much more serious one for his enemy. Though the British cabinet eventually made the necessary concessions on the score of the Orders-in-Council, in response to the pressures of industrial lobbying at home, its action came too late…. The loss of the North American markets could have been a decisive blow. As it was by the time the United States declared war, the Continental System was beginning to crack, and the danger correspondingly diminishing. Even so, the war, inconclusive though it proved in a military sense, was an irksome and expensive embarrassment which British statesman could have done much more to avert. Rjensen (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I am talking about the section 'Trade with France' Its pathetic. This section should give some kind of context for the seizures but doesn't, and is very, very one-sided as always. Britain always used blockade in war, it was standard procedure. America did NOT argue the blockade was illegal, they were protesting that the Rule of 1756 was illegal. The rule said that trade that was not allowed in peacetime should not be allowed in wartime, and was originally used in the Seven Years War to stop France using neutrals to circumvent the blockade of its coasts. The British did indeed push belligerent rights to very extreme levels against Napoleon. But even with the 1807 Fox blockade it always tried to be accommodating to US trade, allowing exemptions it did not allow other neutrals. The official British position, as stated in Hansard is that the US action was a stab in the back, and that it used impressment as a justification for war when it was its almost bankrupt from over two decades of almost constant war. 1812 was the only time a British Prime Minister has been assassinated.

The trade restrictions did not start in 1807; they began in 1803 & just became more severe after Bonaparte's own decrees. They first began in 1793 with a British attempt to starve France into submission after the revolution. Where is the British view? There is no context at all to explain that this was a global economic war, and that blockade was standard practice between belligerents. The article gives the impression it was all aimed at the US, when Britain stopped all neutrals, and eventually went to war with Denmark partly over its very severe assertion of maritime rights. It has constant references to American honour' and the Chesapeake Affair, but nothing on the US bombardment of the smaller HMS Little Belt and the refusal of the US to pay compensation for the 22 sailors killed (GB paid compensation for the Chesapeake incident). Why is this? And where is the discussion of the Henry Letters, and Madison admitting to the French Ambassador that the whole thing was an attempt to justify war? That is why it was widely called 'Mr Madison's War' at the time. Madison was humiliated in Congress over the affair and then changed tact to impressment. That is the truth, as can be seen in official US documents available online. Britain was annoyed that US contraband shipments to France was prolonging the war, and they were bitter that for all their talk of 'liberty' Jefferson & Madison were much closer to Bonaparte - one of history's worse dictators - than a fellow democracy which was also its biggest trading partner and source of credit. (Barings lent the US the money for the Louisiana Purchase) Bonaparte and his stooges captured hundreds of US ships in European ports; Jackson came close to war with France in the 1830s due to his demands for compensation.

A recent Smithsonian Magazine article says that the British; “feelings ranged from disbelief and betrayal at the beginning of the war to outright fury and resentment at the end. They regarded the U.S. protests against Royal Navy impressment of American seamen as exaggerated whining at best, and a transparent pretext for an attempt on Canada at worst. It was widely known that Thomas Jefferson coveted all of North America for the United States. When the war started, he wrote to a friend: “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.” Moreover, British critics interpreted Washington’s willingness to go to war as proof that America only paid lip service to the ideals of freedom, civil rights and constitutional government. In short, the British dismissed the United States as a haven for blackguards and hypocrites…Nor could the British understand why Jefferson and then Madison were prepared to accept Napoleon’s false assurances that he would refrain from using the Continental System against American shipping—but not accept Prime Minister Lord Liverpool’s genuine promises that wrongly impressed American sailors would be released. Writing home to England, a captain on one of the Royal Navy ships patrolling around Halifax complained: “I am really ashamed of the narrow, selfish light in which [the Americans] have regarded the last struggle for liberty and morality in Europe—but our cousin Jonathan has no romantic fits of energy and acts only upon cool, solid calculation of a good market for rice or tobacco” But all we get is constant reference to ‘American honor’ and endless selective use of sources. It has to stop --Godwhale (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not know why it would be obvious that the UK was unconcerned about U.S. shipping. TFD (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that Rjensen could answer that far better than I could but I have seen quite a bit on British mercantile views at the time towards American competition for the carrying trade and none of it was positive. This did effect the Parliament's positions. Also be aware that the captains and authorities issuing the condemnation of the ships and cargoes received a percentage of the profits thereby. Please be aware that we are talking the early 1800's and we seem to be coloring this with 21st century views.Tirronan (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tirronan, can you give me a single example of a US ship was condemned by the GB prize court? At no point anywhere in the article does it properly explain why Britain was stopping neutral shipping. Over 300 American vessels and cargoes worth $7m were seized by Napoleon alone after his Milan and Berlin Decrees. Russia, Prussia, the Netherlands, Denmark & Sardinia also seized US ships. The Two Sicily's captured 49 US ships in 1809 alone on Bonaparte’s orders. But we are told three times in one sentence that it was because Britain, which still owned over half the world’s merchant tonnage in 1850 was jealous of the US. You really need to put your nationality to one side when you edit articles and try to do so dispassionately and with some balance. Try reading 'Prologue to War; England & the United States; 1805-1812' written by (US) author Bradford Perkins in 1961. It is available online, and is a thoroughly scholarly account of the lead up to the war. Or 'Amid a Warring World, American foreign relations 1775-1815' by Robert Smith, also American. Or 'The Other War of 1812' by James Cusick, again an American writer. These books explain that not only was Madison desperate to get Canada but Florida as well. He got Congress to issue the No Transfer Resolution in secret session authorising the annexation of east Florida while Spain was occupied by French troops and had no king or effective government. Where is the mention of the filibustering invasion of Florida by Jackson at the same time Canada was being invaded? Spain incidentally was not at war with the US but got invaded anyway on the absurd premise that east florida should have been included in the Louisiana Purchase. In late 1811 the General in charge of the Boston garrison was ordered to have 10,000 men on stand-by for immediate service. On 13th Dec 1811 Congress voted funds for thousands of volunteers, but had no obvious enemy to attack. Madison needed to find an excuse.

Madison only started using impressment as an excuse for war when his ruse over the Henry papers was shown as the fake it was. Madison bought the papers for $50,000 from a fake French Count which contained fake correspondence between the Earl of Liverpool and Sir James Craig, late Governor-General of Canada, and Capt Henry an Irish spy. Madison blanked out parts of the papers to make the Federalists, who opposed war, think that they were implicated in the plot. Madison told Congress that Britain had employed a secret agent to destabilise the Union. He was to separate the mercantile states of the North East from the agricultural slave states in the South. Britain would then send a minister to liaise with the former and establish an alliance. He used it as a Casus Belli and asked Congress to declare war, after writing to Jefferson that the troops were ready. He said that whilst the British ambassador ‘smiled at us with his face, his agent was fomenting the disintegration of our country.’ Napoleon was desperate for the US to declare war on Britain to ease the pressure in Europe; the French ambassador said 'if this doesn't cause war nothing will' when he saw the papers.

But because the plot didn’t exist the Federalists called Madison's bluff & told him he was manufacturing a reason for war. The correspondence was widely reproduced in newspapers in Europe & America. At the same time, Jefferson wrote to a friend that the armed columns were ready, but the only problem they had was deciding whether to invade Canada or Florida. On 5th May 1812 Lord Holland told the Commons that the Americans had made grievous charges against the honour and good faith of England which were deeply damaging to its cause in Europe, where it was trying to win allies. Lord Liverpool complained that the Americans, by publishing the Henry papers, showed they were 'not conciliatory.' It’s all there in Hansard, and also in A Peoples' History 1793 – 1844 from the newspapers by Roger Houghton

Why is none of this in the article as a reason for what happened but the Chesapeake Incident, which happened FIVE YEARS before the war is? A while back another editor ask why no mention of HMS Little Belt. But got no reply. Why is that?--Godwhale (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The section on trade seems to indicate British resentment of the US trade with France was a reason for the war. Since the British went above and beyond in trying to avoid a war over trade by cancelling the Orders in Council etc., it is obvious that it was American resentment of the British blockade of France which was not specifically aimed at the US but had been a British tactic for this and other wars. Dabbler (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for Rjensen to reply on this as to why the Henry Papers have never been mentioned before. In the meantime, here's a link to Founders Online, and to Madison spinning his cock & bull story to Congress which he knew was a lie, and which led to an unnecessary war & to the deaths of 20,000 people

http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/03-04-02-0244 --Godwhale (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A good point there Godwhale I think both the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair is mentioned twice in the article. The Little Belt Affair should be mentioned if they were not because they were indications of just how serious the rising tensions were on the maritime situation at the time. As you point out predation on American shipping was not only just a British affair. This was a direct result of the lack of naval power of America. I would direct your attention to the books Six Frigates Ian W. Toll and the Civil War of 1812. Both give an excellent view on all the issues of the time. If someone told me that America had sent emissaries to work out a deal with Russia and Prussia against Britain I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. However you are attempting to paint Britain as the Lilly White purveyor of cause here and that I utterly reject. As the Civil War of 1812 showed in agonizing detail Britain worked long and hard against the interests of America and worked fairly hard to make the republic fail. So no I am not interested in tilting the article. There were NO GOOD GUYS where this war is concerned. Tirronan (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Godwhale I don't know why you are pushing the issue of the Henry Papers. It's an interesting story but had no effect on the ultimate decision to go to war. One of the books you suggested for reading, Amid A Warring World: American Foreign Relations, 1775 -1815 by Robert W. Smith, does not even bother to mention the Henry Papers. Apparently he considered them to be unimportant. The other book you recommended, Prologue to War by Bradford Perkins explains what the Henry Papers were about, but it does not support some of your exaggerated claims. Perkins book can be viewed at the link below and it's on pages 369 to 372. https://archive.org/details/prologuetowareng011188mbp Dwalrus (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If as Godwhale says, the "The official British position, as stated in Hansard is that the US action was a stab in the back, and that it used impressment as a justification for war when it was its almost bankrupt from over two decades of almost constant war." then that should be included in the article. To not include it is US bias. This should be pretty easy to prove, UK Hansard is searchable online. As I've said before, there is not a lot of balance in this article, and quite a few editors on here are happy to keep it that way. Certainly the "opportunistic stab in the back aspect" view by the British of the US action in the war is not reflected in the article, and not in the "Trade with France" section where it would be most apt. If we can get some references fro these viewpoints, they should be added to the article to reflect the UK viewpoint.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hansard is a compilation of speeches in Parliament -- ie primary sources. Wikipedia avoids that and stresses published reliable secondary sources. The MPs of 1812 had very little or no access to the sources that the RS use. Rjensen (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think certainly if this is combined with secondary articles, that comments on it, it should be included (for instance, the Smithsonian article Godwhale mentions Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hansard makes clear the outrage that was felt at the time. Primary sources are not illegal if used judiciously but its not really the issue. The Perkins book I suggest is an excellent source, as it is based on an exhaustive review of the letters, diplomatic correspondence etc. Page 272-3 says that the Little Belt incident 'helped breed the psychological case for war'. Newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic called for war afterwards, and that the Monroe 'administration realised that America had been energised by the retaliation' for the Chesapeake Affair. Why has the Little Belt incident not been included before Rjensen? It is also cited in the Lambert book which you have rejected and plenty of other places.

If you’re saying the Henry papers are not relevant because it didn’t affect the ultimate decision to go to war then we can say the same about many other things. But pages 372-3 make clear the Henry papers were very important because it ‘did contribute to war'. It states that the 'incident produced a general feeling the US was bluffing in war talk, which the Federalists argued was ‘rather manufactured for exportation than home consumption being destined to go to Europe…to flatter France & terrify Britain...In Congress the War Hawks reacted angrily to the bluff charge, Senator Giles insisted army be expanded from 10,000 to 25,000 to retrieve lost reputation at home & abroad.' what the books says it the humiliation hardened the determination of many War Hawks to go to war to restore national honour.--Godwhale (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the Little Belt affair needs to be added, no idea why it's not in here, clearly relevant!. Have people tried to add it before and it's been blocked? Odd.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Godwhale Can you please tell me the name of the Smithsonian article you referred to before, that talks about British attitudes?

I just want to read it… thanks! Also, I’m trying to look at Hansard online but the millbank database was down yesterday. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Godwhale It was not Madison who "blanked out parts of the papers to make the Federalists, who opposed war, think that they were implicated in the plot" as you claimed. Henry was the person who "blanked out" sections of the letters not Madison. Perkins states on page 370: "When Monroe received the copies, he discovered that they were filled with emendations, omissions, and rows of asterisks designed to hint that incriminating passages had been removed. The Secretary asked Henry to name Federalists who had engaged in treasonable conversations with him. The traitor demurred...."

Perkins states that the Henry letters did not help Madison. He states: "Aside from causing a Federalist boycott of the White House which reduced grocery and liquor bills, the President benefited in no way from the disclosures. He had made the most stupid if not the most important misstep of his presidential career." (page 372)

It appears that you do not understand that many of Perkins comments and quotes do not refer to the Henry letters. The accusation that the U.S. was only bluffing had been around for years before the Henry letters. You state: "the Federalists argued was ‘rather manufactured for exportation than home consumption being destined to go to Europe…to flatter France & terrify Britain.'" But that quote has nothing to do with the Henry letter. It was made in a letter on December 2, 1811, more than three months before the Henry letters were given to Congress. The letter was written by a Federalist named Samuel Taggart.

You state: "In Congress the War Hawks reacted angrily to the bluff charge, Senator Giles insisted army be expanded from 10,000 to 25,000 to retrieve lost reputation at home & abroad." This has nothing to do with the Henry letters. Giles stated this in December, 1811, long before the Henry letters. It's in the Annals of Congress.

I agree that the President/Little Belt incident does deserve some attention. In Prologue to War, the Bradford Perkins book you recommended, Perkins writes: "The first step toward conversion resulted from a naval clash in May, 1811, brought on by a spate of impressments near the American coast. 'We are all in a Bustle,' Samuel Smith wrote to his son, 'in Consequence of the Cruel Conduct of Four British Cruizers who have been off the Coast for these few weeks, they press the Young Men from our Coasters & in one Instance a Young Man who never had been at sea before."

The Little Belt/President incident demonstrated the growing anger in the U.S. over the actions of British ships near the coast, particularly over impressment.

However, not everyone thinks it was important. Andrew Lambert states: "With Britain and the United States already on the verge of war the bloodshed had surprisingly little impact." (page 43) Dwalrus (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

And here's some more views on it - I agree with the above, clearly something needs to be inserted about The Little Belt Affair:

• “From the British perspective, the Little Belt’s battering changed the public’s mindset about fighting the United States. Support for war increased during the

summer of 1811, which helped to prepare the population for the conflict that began a year later.” Hooks, J. (2012). Redeemed honor: the President-Little Belt Affair and the coming of the war of 1812. The Historian, (1), 1

• “In both nations sentiment for a conflict increased as many Britons believed the United States had sullied their

national honor and numerous Americans concluded that a victory over Britain would come with ease.” Hooks, J. W. (2009). “A friendly salute the President-Little Belt Affair and the coming of the war of 1812” Ebscohost P ii

• “Two other developments contributed to the deterioration of Anglo-American relations in 1811. The first was the Little Belt incident, a kind of Chesapeake affair in reverse….. Most Americans saw the engagement as just retribution for the Chesapeake affair and celebrated accordingly. The British, on the other hand, were convinced that the President was guilty of unprovoked aggression, and some newspapers demanded retaliation.“The blood of our murdered country-men must be revenged,” declared the London Courier.”

Donald R Hickey “The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict p 22 Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is available online. It is called 'The British View the War of 1812 Quite Differently Than Americans Do; and is by Amanda Foreman. If you put that in google it should come up. There are two other similar articles available online that are worth reading. They are; 'A British View of the Naval War of 1812' by Jeremy Black which appeared in the Naval History Magazine - August 2008. There is also A British Perspective on the War of 1812 by Andrew Lambert --Godwhale (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh cheers, I think I had actually seen the Smithsonian, but not the other two - all good articles on the Brit perspective. Andrew Lambert is another British Historian that says Britain actually won the war, I wasn't aware of that (though it's a web article, he is a recognised Historian). Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there is an understandable tendency for editors to over-emphasise the land battles and not the British blockade. While dramatic, they settled very little, whereas the blockade did tremendous economic damage to those estates that voted for war. Not does the article make clear that the final three battles, New Orleans, Fort St. Philip & on the Great Lakes happened after the peace treaty had been signed, so played no part in the outcome. This is highly misleading, and I'm sorry to say, probably deliberate --Godwhale (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good point, reading much war of 1812 history, it's almost like there was a few exciting ship battles, and then both sides stopped using their Navies, whereas in fact, the British were of course still using a lot of their navy to enforce blockades (and the US was trying to blockade run, generally not successfully), and to deliver troops in amphibious attacks. And as you say, its arguable that it was the blockade and British control of the sea. Notjust for economic reasons, but because the British could move troops and make amphibious attacks anywhere there was water, and the US could do little about it, except reinforce intended targets if they got wind of incoming attacks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

For a short overview of the causes and naval activity of the war I would suggest N.A.M. Rodgers "Command of the Ocean", Vol. 2 of his history of the Royal Navy, Chapter 36 on Operations 1812-15 pp. 564 - 572. Rodgers attributes the war to Madison's (and Jefferson's) political support for Napoleonic France together with their belief in 1811-12 that France was more likely to win the European war (which seemed quite likely until the invasion of Russia devastated his armies). Rodgers states Madison also believed that he held the whip hand because of British dependence on the American trade for the supply of Wellington's Peninsula army and so pursued a diplomatic hard line against the British. Rodgers suggests that impressment was not a major factor in the origins and Madison did not want this settled because it would remove one of his excuses to go to war. By 1812, Rodgers considers that the British had effectively tried to remove or reduce all the American grievances including the Orders in Council. They were therefore surprised and believed that the declaration of war was "a mistake" which would be withdrawn once the Americans realised that the British had lifted their trade restrictions.

Rodgers considers that the progress of the naval war was economically important, mostly because of Madison's decision to ban US traers which adversely affected many Americans without causing very much harm to Britain as by this stage in the European war other supply sources were available. Apart from the relatively insignificant US Navy, though its early single ship successes caused disproportionate dismay to the British, American privateers threatened British trade at first, but these attacks were nullified by the convoy systems and the increasingly important British blockade of the American coast. Throughout the war, the British maintained contact and resupplied their ships at sympathetic American ports. Dabbler (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Godwhale There is a section on the blockade already, do you think it needs to be changed, to reflect the importance of the blockade to the overall war? Also, there is little reference to the Little Belts Affair, but also no direct reference to the Chesapeake–Leopard_Affair (though offence at this incident had died down by the start of the war), they could both be included in the origins, at least some reference to them? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Godwhale Just to address your concerns, I have added the Little Belt Affair in the section on Impressement, so it is in the same section as the discussion of the Chesapeake Affair. As you say, in terms of balance, both actions should be there, as one shows the UK in a negative light, and the other shows Britain in a negative light. Both events had an effect on the public, and I agree, the fact that the Little Belt Affair happenned so close to the start of the war it would be hard to argue it wasn't one of the causes.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but given that the offending party, not the victim, declared war after the Little Belt affair, how can it be claimed to be a cause of the war? It may be a symptom of the American aggressiveness and spoiling for a fight, but the British did not declare war or retaliate because of the affair, that was a further decision by the Americans. The British, despite the Little Belt affair did not want, to go to war with the Americans but continued in their attempts at conciliation up to and after the declaration of war by the Congress. Dabbler (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Dabbler It can be claimed as a cause of war not necessarily because of the British opinion, but because of the American reaction - in that the US was encouraged by the fact they had won a victory over the Royal Navy (apparently the fact their ship was bigger was lost on them!!!). In any case, references are in the article if you want to read more.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Little Belt Affair was not a cause since it was the U.S. that declared war. It's only significance is that it reflected growing anger in the U.S. over the aggressive operations of British ships close to the U.S. coast and in particular impressment.Dwalrus (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, its significance to the origins of the war was that the US felt buoyed by the success of their victory over the Royal Navy, so realising that they could be defeated. In any case, not sure if you have seen them, but the historians (including Donald Hickey) saying that it was part of the origins of the war are referenced in the section, and the relevant excerpts are pasted above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I had not seen your previous post on J. Hooks. I’ve never heard of him. He makes a strong statement that isn’t supported by any major historian on this time period. Hickey merely lists the Little Belt Affair as one of a number of events that “contributed to the deterioration of Anglo-American relations in 1811.” He also lists the Battle of Tippecanoe and the “fresh set of demands” presented by the new British minister to the United States. Hickey also stated that: “The British government, however, chose not to make an issue of the affair.” Newspaper quotes should be used with great care as they do not necessarily represent a government’s position. I'm not convinced that the single source of J. Hooks is proof of its significance to the origins of the war. Probably needs to be qualified that this is a minority view. Dwalrus (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

But as Hickey said, it “contributed to the deterioration of Anglo-American relations in 1811.”.. a year before the war started, surely that's gong to be a causal factor?. I in fact, assumed that's what that means. As Dabbler said, it's not so relevant what the British Govt did in any case, as they didn't start the war (and were clearly trying to avoid it through)Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hickey only sees this event as no more significant than a number of other events. By contrast, he sees the attack on the Chesapeake as much more important. That is the overwhelming opinion of historians. You have edited the article to include "while the US was encouraged by the fact they had won a victory over the Royal Navy." Hickey makes no such claim. The general view is that people in the U.S. were happy to avenge the attack on the Chesapeake, but they were still pessimistic about taking on the dominate British Navy. When the war actually started no one believed the small U.S. navy could defeat the huge British Navy simply because of the Little Belt Affair.Dwalrus (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say The little Belt affair was more significant than any other issue, the main problem as raised by Godwhale, was that it was not mentioned in that article, while the others were. Apologies for the incorrect citing to Hickey, it was actually Hooks that said that, not Hickey, my mistake I've switched the reference Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that the Little Belt affair should be in the article as part of the rising tensions over maritime issues. So long as it stays to that I would support it. If it is yet another attempt to slant the article in a pro-British direction then be warned that I will personally take it up as an point to see about a article ban. Once again I see endless arguments all intended to spin the article in ways that frankly disturbed me and this appears to be more of the same. Do you honestly think that other editors have nothing else to do with their time but deal with this issue over and over? I'm beyond done with this and funny it stopped being long ago. What shall we argue next the Battle of New Orleans AGAIN???? Tirronan (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Tirronan, this is just an attempt to insert a little balance into the article, which editors have said time & again is heavily US-centric. Why can't you address the points made & see that part of the problem is your own militancy?--Godwhale (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

ExactlyGodwhale. Tirronan, this issue was raised by Godwhale, and I was trying to support him in trying get a bit of balance into the article. Despite what you think, the article isn't your personal possession. If you want to write a book, please go and do so. The article is to be edited by wikipedians from all over the world, and some of them won't agree with you. If you don't like it, leave.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Lets see, you have used terms like American aggressiveness, like this war was all about and expensive and aggression policy. The American nation at that time had no standing army or navy. While by no means faultless perhaps above all being overly mercantile in its trading policies above all else. I believe that is stated as such in the article, nor are the American intentions towards the Indian nations glossed over. However modern editors at Wikipedia make the major mistake of viewing a pair of nations that have little to do with the modern versions and conflating the view. I see this most often when someone takes "the Canadian view". The 1st claim is that Canada won the war... when there wasn't a "Canada as a nation state at all. That is followed by "We burned Washington" yes the Canadian fleet chock full of Canadian soldiers defeated the nasty yanks. Well no it was the British thank you very much. This followed by how the Canadians beat American when they invaded. Finally something that was TRUE, alas only to a point. British formations and Indian allies won most of the battles because there were so few Canadian militia. To get to the point, we get this because we live in modern times not then. So we see our ancestors as the staunch Canadians/British/Americans we are now as having anything in common with attitudes then. Well Guess what? They don't. That is part of the problem we bring to this article when we try and edit it through modern eyes. We just don't get it. Speaking hypothetically had been part of the American population near Detroit the only reason I would have ceased shooting people for treason was that I ran out of ammunition. That was how far off attitudes were between now and then. It was not any different on the northern side of the border either. OK so that is problem 1.

Problem 2 History as I want to see it. Now this interesting concept is also held in some reverence an it starts as Bias! Or national POV slants or take your choice and insert here. The views presented here are not my views nor any of the other editors. We use historian's views who are considered main stream and reliable sourced. When that mainstream consensus is... is where this article is. So I have heard terms like "Balance", and "Palative" used. The problem here is where does that stop? It then becomes a popularity contest and not a true history. I'll go further, we wouldn't be balancing anything. I and every editor that went along with it would be taking part in LYING TO THE PUBLIC AND i WILL NOT DO IT! The same applies when the historiography changes. Get me straight here, I didn't like reading that General Baron marched a army half starved and under trained to surrender to a force half his size and he behind fortifications at that! However I'd be the 1st opponent to any change to it. What happened was documented by both sides and beyond repute. If what I am reading by your and Deathlibrarian is correct then this is just one more attempt to make the article seem more pro British/Canadian/Commonwealth. That should never be what a history article is about. Another example is the American Civil War, oh heaven for fend that it should have really been the clashing of two economies one of which utterly depended on slavery. And there are lots of passionate Americans that refuse the very idea. The problem again is that doesn't make it any the less true.

Finally it isn't often but you may take it for a fact that you caught part of what was mostly intended for Deathlibrarian. He has taken it as his mission in life to change this article no matter how long it took nor how shaky the grounds. Any reading of the talk pages and the archive will make the point far better than I ever can. It has lead all the way to a request for review for bias by Deathlibrarian and which went nowhere. Dragging the same editors over the same subjects for over nine years is sliding over to harassment in my opinion. I respect that another editor can and often will have differing opinions. Shoving 6 to 9 people through a literary meat grinder to get his way is something else altogether. My apologies to you in that matter Godwhale.Tirronan (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone claim any of those things you mentioned in that first paragraph on this talk page. It's not what's being claimed here. Rwenonah (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Tirronan I would say *you* are exactly the problem here. Instead of dealing with the issues, continuously resorting to personal attacks on other editors. I'm a general editor, looking at a number of pages, whereas you seem to mainly live here and fanatically defend your particular point of view, in the meantime making this a completely biased page, along with a number of other editors. I must say people like you make what is a volunteer position in wikipedia, a thoroughly unpleasant job, and I'm sure have probably resulted in driving many new people to this page, like Godwhale away from it. I have done my best here to try to maintain some sort of balance, but continously get attacked by you and some of the other editors here, who appear to have decided that maintaining what is said on this page is a matter of national pride. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Well interesting but not to the point, Nation Pride isn't history. You were invited to take your "bais complaints" about this article for review and nothing was found was it? I added not a single line in reaction to your complaints so I obviously was trying to block you. Endlessly blogging isn't going to work either.Tirronan (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

My bias complaint is in with the admins, but they haven't looked at it. Frankly, I don't blame them, they probably saw "the war of 1812" and ran a mile. Frankly, I know there's little I can do, if you Rjensen and enough people dominate a page to enforce your viewpoint, you can consistently control it, block attempts to change it, refuse mediation, and you will control the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

DL, I don't control the page nor do any of the other editors. You are not achieving consensus is the issue. Look at this as an example, stating the stab in the back issue, what one politician or a dozen of them think materially effect the war and the history? No. An if I or Rjensen, TFD, or Dabbler, put it in we'd be reverted and too much of it we'd be reported. I don't see inflammatory phrases in the article. You seem to want to add it. If so do so. I've given warning on what I will do if that happens. As to the point of the article review they looked at it and didn't find much to go after or we'd have damn sure heard. As for the "Stab in the back". I'm sure some in Britain thought that way, so? I know that some in Congress thought Britain a overbearing bastard, but so what? Sheesh.Tirronan (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing written in Wikipedia is ever dropped. Just look back in the archive and it will be there. It isn't so much wrong as a confusion of nationalities and entirely human. I don't know how many times I've read the claim that only British sailors were impressed, check that one out as well. No human on the planet could have told an American from a Brit by accent or clothes. And as a few British authors have pointed out not a few British Captains, given the pressing need, would have cared if they could have. Frankly I don't get slanting an article period much less when it is a war history. I've found very few occasions when there was really a "right side" of something that by its very nature is vicious, lethal, and needs driven. National interests uber alles almost every single time. There are almost never any good guys with a few notable exceptions. In particular the Little Belt incident is a shining example of "you are never going to get the right answer". Both Captains gave conflicting statements all sides agree that the visibility was about shot. This was not an era where love in the truth was ever loved much. Anyway so that I make it clear the 1st paragraph was in general and not specific. I hope that answers your comment correctly.

I think part of the problem of introduced bias is that of identifying "historian's views who are considered main stream and reliable sourced". There have been many historians who have had their views dismissed by editors here as "unreliable" on not "main stream" according to the editor's POV. As a result the story is incomplete and not all POVs are represented fairly.Dabbler (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with dabbler Dabbler (talk) I have seen that constantly on here, and it is frustrating as all hell. As soon as an historian's viewpoint disagrees with what some of the editors on here believe, that historian is attacked for X reason. Some editors on here, seem to think that the only good historians that should be recognised enough to be included in the article, are those that agree with their point of view only. I have said this *so many times* to people like Tirronan that the article, as dabbler says, should have *all POVs are represented fairly*. While people like Godwhale and I are here only trying to broaden the POV in this article, we are attacked... while IMHO all we are trying to do is show the various viewpoints about the War of 1812.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I probably wrote 80% of the Battle of Borodino (talk about contentious) which is about the only thing worse than the War of 1812. My approach there was to state whatever happened in the Walter Cronkite manner. The scheer numbers of bad histories and worse historian still staggers me to this day. I used then the same resources, my local Community College and UTD faculty helped me as well. They have access to materials I simply wouldn't have had but for them. Here are some of the things that they taught me to look for. How supported is the work? How much unneeded commentary is written with special concerns if it seems to be carrying a slant? I have a few naval historian that have a soft spot in their hearts for me (I think either they have character flaws or they just appreciate that I buy horrendous expensive technical books on all thing related to naval warfare). I read a really nice book on Blucher but I'd never use it as the historian in question never failed to blast Bernadette or Swartzenberg given any opportunity. Lambert's name came up once and one of the professors remarked that he was really looking forward to his next book "How the Britsh Navy won the Pacfic war with a slight help from the unlettered and uncultured barbarian's from the other side of the pond". Journal reviews of historians work is a major help. Finally when working on The Battle of Waterloo, where everyone has an axe to grind, I used 4 authors and crossed checked every fact. Some events like 1812, Borodino, Jutland, and Waterloo, the more modern the work is the better off you are. However in most cases when a modern author is well reviewed, well supported in his documentation, and not expressing a lot of personal opinion you probably have as good as it is going to get.Tirronan (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Tirronan, I don’t really know what point you are trying to make. This is supposed to be an attempt to gain a consensus on the points raised at the start of the section, and quite honestly I’m struggling to follow some of this. Let me try to make one more attempt to explain to you how biased American history has always been in how it portrays these and other events. Take the ‘Fort Mims Massacre’ on 30th August 1813 at Lake Tensaw north of Mobile. 550 fully armed frontiersmen were killed when they were overrun by about 1000 Red Sticks Indians during the Creek War, which Jackson had started. This is not called a ‘battle’ but a ‘massacre,’ because Americans died. In response, Jackson wiped out two villages, Tallasahatchee & Talladega, killing hundreds of braves & hundreds of unarmed women & children. WP states, ‘Davy Crockett, serving in the Tennessee Militia, commented, "We shot 'em down like dogs."’ Yet these events are officially known as the ‘Battle of Tallasahatchee’ & the ‘Battle of Talladega.’ Any attempt to portray these latter two events on WP as a massacre would be met with outrage and would be reverted immediately by indignant editors. Yet a fort is a legitimate military target, a village is absolutely not. You cannot expect people from other English speaking countries to not find this sort of crass bias offensive. There are many, many similar examples.

We need to get back to the points raised. I want to make some changes in the following areas;

1) There is a complete lack of context regarding the GB interdiction of US shipping. There is no explanation that Britain was exercising its belligerent rights. The remarks about it doing so because it was jealous of the growing US merchant marine are utterly childish & completely untrue. 2) The fact that New England was dead against the war, and considered the embargoes - the non-intercourse Act, the Embargo Act and Macon’s Bill No2, which are not even listed - as an unconstitutional restraint of trade. Nowhere in this article does it explain that it was called ‘Mr Madison’s War in those areas because he was hell bent on having his war. 3) The Henry letters. That Madison stood up in front of Congress & accused Britain of a deliberate attempt to destroy the Union. This was intended as a casus belli. Only afterwards did the War Hawks start quoting impressment as a reason for war. In his biography of Monroe (Page 95 Google books) Garry Willis states; “the episode showed to what extent Madison was working secretly, not only with Monroe or the shady count, but with the French minister Serurier, to bring on a war.” Plenty of other sources state that Bonaparte was desperate for the US to attack Britain to take the heat off him in Europe. In addition, there are plenty of sources which state the case for impressment was wildly exaggerated – Smithsonian.com says it was probably a ‘trumped up charge’ 4) Nowhere on this page does it mention the burning & plundering of Ontario (York) between April 28 and 30 1812. American troops burned the buildings of the Legislative Assembly among others. They took £2500 in specie from the treasury and the government ceremonial mace, returned by FDR in 1934. US troops returned at the end of June 1812 and burned what was left. This was why British troops burned Washington, and only the public buildings. President Madison, who started the war ended up hiding in a shack in Virginia.

Regarding your comment about the Professor’s views on Lambert, we can all say similar things. On an online discussion page I read recently called ‘When We Burned Canadian York,’ Gerald Denis writes; “One wonders if the wise Madison, in his private moments, worried about the implications of the trend he had inaugurated in American foreign policy. Such curious blindness to American acts of aggression, and the persistent belief that the United States is an exceptional nation, divinely blessed always to be the Good Guys, remains a serious impediment to winning “hearts and minds” worldwide. A more objective assessment of US history might lead to a more realistic relationship with other nations, friends and enemies both." I couldn't put it better myself--Godwhale (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Godwhale I did a quick search and here is the reference to York: The British commanders ate the supper that had been prepared for the President and his departmental secretaries after returning from hopeful glorious U.S. victory, before they burned the Executive Mansion; American morale was reduced to an all-time low. The British viewed their actions as retaliation for the destructive American invasions and raids into Canada, most notably the Americans' burning of York earlier in 1813.Tirronan (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The war was primarily over maritime issues and ran on for some 19 years. Most probably the editor with the most knowledge of it is Rjensen. However again if you are looking for a good side here you will absolutely fail to find it. Britain was absolutely determined to stop anyone from trading with continental Europe. If you have doubts go look at the Gunboat War with the Danes. A quick perusal of Ian W. Toll's Six Frigates goes into it at great length. The mash up was that it was complex enough that it could truly make an article of its own. There were substantial financial rewards for condemning ships and their cargoes through the Admiralty courts and very little sympathy for the owners. There were of course two sides to the argument however this article is supposed to be an overview of the entire war. As far as I know at no point does the article assign blame to either side. Yes you are right in that France also did so and at one point America entered into the Quasi-War over it. There were discussions on declaring war on both countries as a matter of fact.

Yes America was very divided on the War of 1812 something that the article goes over in some detail. Nor was there any lack of opposition in the Parliament either. As for Mr. Lambert trying to convince me he is a real historian is a waste of breath and time.Tirronan (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You reject Lambert, Professor of Naval History in War Studies, King's College London, award winning writer of 17 historical books on the era and contributor to numerous TV programmes because he made a couple of facetious remarks in his book, and laid bare the ‘smokescreen between rhetoric & reality’ in Madison’s conduct. Perhaps this sentence on page 3 is what offends you; “the idea that Britain ‘lost’ the war – in which they secured their war aims by compelling the Americans to stop invading Canada, destroyed their capital city & reduced them to insolvency in the process – is one that requires explanation.’ Or maybe it’s where he says on page 36; “the British had already modified the Orders in Council to reduce their impact on American shipping, seeking a better relationship with the new President. Madison chose to ignore the British gesture and swallow a blatant Napoleonic lie” or maybe it’s his quote of US historian Paul Schroeder; “An American historian of European politics may be permitted to wonder why American historians have made so little of the paradox that an infant democratic republic should have entered this titanic struggle on the side of one of modern history’s worst tyrants…perhaps one great emotion linked Jefferson & Madison, great theorists of democracy, with Napoleon, a great military despot; a visceral hatred of Great Britain.” Actually I think its more likely page 402, where he explains that because Britain was so busy sorting out Bonaparte in 1815 that despite being defeated, US writers were ‘free to rewrite the war as a victory’, and were left ‘to create an Anglophone understanding at variance with reality, largely to serve internal political divisions’ and how Republicans erected a substantial victory arch of words & pictures to transform defeat into victory, folly into wisdom.’ This the default position. Hence we read that the Founding Fathers always fought to uphold noble principles; they were never opportunistic but ardent believers that all men are created equal, even though 8 of the first 10 presidents were slave holders. Exactly the same thing happened after the Revolutionary War and Civil War, to the point that students in Texas are now being taught that the war was nothing to do with slavery but tariffs, and that Moses was the original Founding Father. Instead we have fairly extensive quotes from ‘the historian’ Richard Maass, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Evansville. I’m sure that Evansville is a perfectly fine university, but Mass only got his Ph.D. in 2013. His quotes are from an online article which he claims ‘finally lays to rest the myth’ that US expansionism was responsible. Presumably he hasn’t seen the letters Jefferson wrote in which he spoke of his ‘empire of liberty’ covering the entire hemisphere or where Clay and his associates said they wouldn’t rest until this was so, and the umpteen other sources which point to expansionism being the number one priority. Or the simple reality that settlers were pushing the Indians back and taking their lands on a daily basis. Presumably America reached the Pacific coast entirely by accident. The Maass quotes are not RS and need to be removed. I suggest whoever dug that article up used a Google search and used it because it fitted what they wanted to read. If you are going to push this view at least find an established historian. Regarding the description of the maritime issues you give in your second paragraph, this is actually a pretty good overview – just a pity it’s not in the article.--Godwhale (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Canadian English edit-notice please

Please create an edit notice for the article, placing in it the template {{Canadian English|form=editnotice}}.

Per the advice/instructions at Template:Canadian English, I am placing the above request on this article's talk-page. I think it might help tamp-down this ongoing/persistent issue of new editors wanting to fix the Canadian English if there was a prominent notice that appears when an editor opens up the editing window (not just the talkpage notice). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious why this is here as it was an international war. South Nashua (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, one version of English used obviously has to be used consistently (MOS:ARTCON) within the article, the article has no clear connection to one English-speaking country over others, and Canadian English was used first, so in accordance with WP guidelines we've continued to use the original version. Rwenonah (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

That seems kind of arbitrary. South Nashua (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh. Doesn't make sense to me, but it is what it is. South Nashua (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it's arbitrary, but the community considers it to be better to have an arbitrary rule to cover this sort of situation rather than a series of edit wars or intractable arguments. --Noren (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars are definitely not good, I agree there as well. This doesn't feel right to me, but it also feels like it's beyond my capacity to fix given the internal political mechanisms that Wikipedia seems to have. South Nashua (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Broken citations

Since I was involved in cleaning up the citations on this page a number of errors have appeared. You can check them for yourself by turning on User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. If the fix is not obvious, one can also use Wikipedia:WikiBlame to trace the editor who added the error and ask them.

broken inline citations (six)

Hickey 2012, p. 68. Harv error: link from #CITEREFHickey2012 doesn't point to any citation. Goltz 2000, Tecumseh. Harv error: link from #CITEREFGoltz2000 doesn't point to any citation. Burroughs 2000, "Prévost, Sir George". Harv error: link from #CITEREFBurroughs2000 doesn't point to any citation. Fraser 2000, "Mallory, Benajah" and Jones 2000, "Willcocks (Wilcox), Joseph" Harv error: link from #CITEREFFraser2000 doesn't point to any citation. Harv error: link from #CITEREFJones2000 doesn't point to any citation. Adams 1930, p. 385; Hickey 1989, p. 303. Harv error: link from #CITEREFAdams1930 doesn't point to any citation. Schama 2006, p. 406. Harv error: link from #CITEREFSchama2006 doesn't point to any citation.

Books in the references section that are no longer cited (17)

If these books are no longer referred to then they should be removed from the References section (possibly moved to further reading if they are general histories of the war): Adams, Henry (1891). History of the United States of America during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. New York: Library of America. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAdams1891. Asplin, Kevin (March 17, 2010). "Marines at Washington 1814". The Asplin Military History Resources. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAsplin2010. Burroughs, Peter (1983). "Prevost, Sir George". In Halpenny, Francess G. Dictionary of Canadian Biography. V (1801–1820) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBurroughs1983. Fregosi, Paul (1989). Dreams of Empire: Napoleon and the first World War, 1792–1815. Hutchinson. p. 328. ISBN 9780091739263. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFregosi1989. Fraser, Robert Lochiel (1985). "Mallory, Benajah". In Halpenny, Francess G. Dictionary of Canadian Biography. VIII (1851–1860) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFraser1985. Gates, Charles M. (1940). "The West in American Diplomacy, 1812-1815". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 26 (4): 499–510. JSTOR 1896318. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGates1940. Goltz, Herbert C. W. (1983). "Tecumseh". In Halpenny, Francess G. Dictionary of Canadian Biography. V (1801–1820) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGoltz1983. Hickey, Donald R (July 2001). "The War of 1812: Still a Forgotten Conflict?". The Journal of Military History. 65 (3): 741–769. doi:10.2307/2677533. JSTOR 2677533. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHickey2001. Hickey, Donald R (Sep 2013). "1812: The Old History and the New". Reviews in American History. 41 (3): 436–44. doi:10.1353/rah.2013.0081. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this cJackson, Donald (1960). Jackson, Donald (1960). "A Critic's View of Old Fort Madison". Iowa Journal of History and Politics. 58 (1): 31–36. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJackson1960. Johnson, Paul E.; McPherson, James M.; Gerstle, Gary; Murrin, John M. (2007). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People, Compact (5th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 299. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJohnsonMcPhersonGerstleMurrin2007. Hickey, Donald R (Sep 2013). "1812: The Old History and the New". Reviews in American History. 41 (3): 436–44. doi:10.1353/rah.2013.0081. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHickey2013. Jones, Elwood H. (1983). "Willcocks, Joseph". In Halpenny, Francess G. Dictionary of Canadian Biography. V (1801–1820) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJones1983. Lavery, B. (1989). Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men and Organisation 1793–1815. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-258-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLavery1989. McKusick, Marshall B. (2009). "Fort Madison, 1808–1813". In William E. Whittaker. Frontier Forts of Iowa: Indians, Traders, and Soldiers, 1682–1862. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. pp. 55–74. ISBN 978-1-58729-831-8. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMcKusick2009. Nelson, Kenneth Ross (1972). Socio-Economic Effects of the War of 1812 on Britain (PhD Dissertation). University of Georgia. pp. 129–44. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFNelson1972. Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. (2007). Encyclopedia of Slave Resistance and Rebellion. 1. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-33272-X. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFRodriguez2007. Smith, Gene A. (January 1999). "'Our flag was display'd within their works': The Treaty of Ghent and the Conquest of Mobile". Alabama Review. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSmith1999.

-- PBS (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Indian vs Native American vs First Nation vs American Indian

This article seems inconsistent as to what to call the groups of indigenous people involved in this war, and I am of the mind that it should at least be consistent, no? The lead section seems to favor the term "Native American," however the terms "Indian," "First Nations," "American Indian," "Aboriginal," and "Indigenous" are also used with varying frequency. There is even disagreement between subsection headings, with section 2.3 titled "Indians" and section 10.3 titled "Indigenous nations."

I am struggling to find precedence besides maybe the French_and_Indian_War, which is also fairly inconsistent in its terminology (perhaps someone can help me find better examples). Is there a preferred term this article should be using?

Since this article is written in Canadian English, should we use the terms suggested on that page ("First Nations" and/or "aboriginal peoples")? Or should we choose "Indian" and/or "American Indian," since that is the term used in the title of the page and would have been used at the time?--Nquinn91 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Co-belligerents

I dispute the characterization of France as a co-belligerent with the US against Britain in the War of 1812. All the dictionary definitions I have read state that co-belligerency involves at the minimum some coordination of the war effort with the co-belligerent, if not any formal alliance or combined operations. The article offers no examples of French-US cooperation in fighting the British in any theatre of the war. I don't argue that the French and US were both fighting the British at the same time, but I see no evidence of any cooperation between the two nations in prosecuting either war. When Napoleon was defeated in 1814, the Americans did not give up their own war against the UK. I have similar doubts about the Spanish co-belligerency with the British, but there is evidence that the British did intervene in Florida. Dabbler (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree; that was also my understanding of the term co-belligerent, and France doesn't fit. Furthermore, the removal of all of Britain's Indian allies from the info box and their replacement with "Tecumseh's Confederacy", which supposedly sufficiently encompasses them, is wrong - most tribes did not fight under Tecumseh but as separate entities under their own war-leaders, his confederacy disintegrated partway through the war but Indian allies continued to participate, and many tribes allied with the British independently of Tecumseh and never acknowledged his leadership in any way (the Dakota, for example, or the Mohawk). Rwenonah (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have re-added Britain's native allies individually and removed France as a co-belligerent to reflect the discussion above. However it does seem historically unjust to not have some recognition of the Napoleonic Wars being in full swing at the exact same time as this war, when the European conflict was on such a larger scale, and Britain was heavily committed to it. There is precedent for the inclusion of France here as a belligerent separated by a divider. See American Revolutionary War infobox in which the Netherlands and Mysore are included even though they had no ties to the Thirteen Colonies and we're involved in completely separate wars in different parts of the world with Britain that just happened to be going on at the same time. Charles lindberg (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding and addressing my concerns. I agree that there is a discrepancy between what we have here and what you describe in another article which I do not know much about. If that is the case, then I would argue the same way and that the so-called co-belligerents should be removed from there too. Dabbler (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Results Box

Just popped in to see the latest on this page, and see the results box looks like this (and posting for posterity). And people say I'm obsessive when I say this page is pro US centric:

"*Military stalemate

• Status quo ante bellum with no boundary changes
• United States invasions of British Canada repulsed
• British invasions of the United States repulsed
• Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy
• Anglo-Spanish troops forced out of Pensacola, Spanish Florida
• Majority of the Great Lakes falls under American control
• Beginning of the Era of Good Feelings"

Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm not sure why Florida needs to be in the info box at all, considering how minor the events there were relative to the rest of the war. I'm also pretty sure that the Spanish weren't forced out of Florida, only West Florida, which the US claimed, so it's also just wrong to have that as a result. Also it's worth noting that, of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie was under American control at the war's end, and neither side controlled Lake Ontario, but Huron was decisively under British control, and I don't believe there was any significant military traffic on Lake Michigan or Superior. I would definitely think, therefore, that those two "results" should be removed. Rwenonah (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Florida and the Great Lakes should be removed. I think shortening down the first line to just "status quo ante bellum" would be better, as the very definition of that term is that there are no boundary changes. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

Infobox

I've revised the infobox to clean it up and make it more comprehensive and neat. Here are the changes I have made:

1. - Removed "either side's invasions repelled", as military stalemate adequately covers this
2. - Tightened up the belligerents in the infobox; "British Empire" covers the United Kingdom and the Canadas et al.
3. - Native American tribes are put into reference form to neaten up the belligerents section
4. - Commanders; only major commanders are listed, in the form of the new infoboxes on the American Revolutionary War and other pages, such as World War II. President of the US and the Secretaries of War who oversaw the war for the Americans, the Prince Regent, Prince Frederick (Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces), Prime Minister and Secretary of State for War for the British, Tecumseh for the Natives, and Ferdinand VII for Spain as a co-combatant.
5. - Strength and casualties have all been neatened up.

Thoughts? Anaruna(talk)

You should have received consensus before making these changes. There are several objections.

1. - British Empire is not nearly specific enough, that could include India, New South Wales, or the African colonies just as easily considering this is 1812.
2. - The reason the Native tribes are separate belligerents than Tecumseh's Confederacy is because many fought separately and we're not formally alligned with Tecumseh even though they we're fighting the U.S.. Also the Confederacy ceased to exist post 1813, after that all the tribes fought individually.
3. - You say you're only including major commanders, yet most of the commanders you've added saw no command posts during the war whatsoever. You also removed the commanders that actually saw real combat and are most associated with this war like Andrew Jackson, and Isaac Brock.
4. - Spain was not a co-combatant. Bourbon Spain was formally allied with Britain in 1814, and were fighting alongside each other in the Peninsular War concurrently with this war. The reason we use the title Bourbon Spain is because Spain was not unified in 1814, it was split between the Bourbon control, and the Bonapartist control.

Charles lindberg (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sought.

1. - The British Empire covers all territories which fought. A sub-drop including the UK and The Canadas would be fine.
2. - It is simple enough to separate them without having a four-mile long list that makes the infobox look intensely ugly and cluttered.
3. - Your definition of major commanders is evidently flawed. The major commanders I included are those in posts of highest seniority - Prime Minister, Secretary of War and so forth. Listing individual commanders just clutters the infobox. Did you not make the same argument on the American Revolutionary War page? You were the first to include George III and Lord North, and neither of them saw combat there either.
4. - Easily changed.
5. - Friendly piece of advice: Seek consensus yourself before making reductive edits on other pages before presuming you have the moral authority to demand it of others. I'm getting rather tired of your belligerent edit-warring attitude. (Anaruna (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC))

1. You sought consensus but never received. I don't require consensus to rv back to a version that had consensus.
2. Also you have not addressed the co-belligerent issue. Spain was not a co-belligerent, they we're a formal ally of Great Britain, so was Tecumseh's Confederacy.
3. on the American Rev. War page, I never once included secretaries of war, or any other cabinet positions other than PM, and head of state. Charles lindberg (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

More problems with this infobox... Why did you use images for flags instead of flagicons. If you don't know how to use flagicons go here, Template:Flagicon Charles lindberg (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am re-adding the individual tribes under Tecumseh as was discussed two months ago. per #Co-belligerents Charles lindberg (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you find one user who agrees with these changes?? Consensus requires more than just yourself. Until then the old infobox stays. Charles lindberg (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1. I did address the co-belligerent issue. I said it's more than easily fixed, simply by removing that part of the infobox.
2. And how are they not relevant? They directed the war effort and had overall authority.
3. I used images for the flags as they seemed to agree with the format of the infobox better. I am well aware of how to use the template.
4. "Consensus requires more than just yourself" - How strange. You demand consensus of others, but not when you revert edits made by consensus on other pages, such as the "Main Leaders" headings. Is it that you hold yourself to different standards of editing than the rest of the Wikipedia community? (Anaruna (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC))

@Anaruna:.....feel free to do what you think is best we have blocked Charles lindberg. --Moxy (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

Looking to cite more sources for information as well as reference information from other wikipedia pages on "War of 1812" topics. Asturza (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead

I think the lead on this article is far too long; it could definitely be cut down and summarised to its key points. See the leads on the Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War and the Seven Years' War for examples; all of those were far larger and more expansive conflicts than this. I'd be happy to do the revisions? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

I would support rewriting and shortening the lead. Rwenonah (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have re-written the lead. Here's my proposed change to the lead:

The War of 1812 (1812–1815) was a conflict fought between the United States and the United Kingdom and their respective allies. Historians in Britain often see it as a minor theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, however, in the United States and Canada, it is seen as a war in its own right.

Since the outbreak of war with Napoleonic France, Britain had enforced a naval blockade to choke off neutral trade, which the United States contested as illegal under international law, while the British felt the Americans presented a threat to their maritime supremacy. In order to man the blockade, Britain forcibly impressed as many as 10,000 American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy. Well-publicised impressment actions, such as the Leander Affair, and the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, enraged the American public. The British were in turn outraged by the Little Belt Affair, which resulted in the deaths of 11 British sailors. Moreover, British political support for a Native American buffer state, which conducted raids on American settlers on the frontier, hindered American expansion. On June 18, 1812, President James Madison signed the American declaration of war into law.

With the majority of its military deployed in Europe to fight Napoleon, the British adopted a defensive strategy. American prosecution of the war effort suffered from its unpopularity, especially in New England, where it was derogatorily referred to as "Mr. Madison's War". American defeats at Detroit and Queenston, thwarted attempts to seize Upper Canada, improving British morale. American attempts to invade Montreal also failed. In 1813, the Americans won control of Lake Erie and shattered Tecumseh's Confederacy, securing a primary war goal. At sea, the powerful Royal Navy blockaded the American coast, allowing them to strike American trade at will. In 1814, one of these raids burned the capital, Washington. The Americans subsequently repulsed British attempts to invade the north and mid-Atlantic states.

At home, the British faced mounting opposition to wartime taxation, and demands to reopen trade with America. With the abdication of Napoleon, the maintenance of the blockade of France and impressment of American sailors were nullified. Peace negotiations began in August, 1814, and the Treaty of Ghent was signed on December 24 later that year. However, news of the peace would not reach America for some time. Unbeknown to the peace, the British launched an invasion of Louisiana, which was decisively defeated in January 1815. The battle was seen to have restored American honour after a mediocre war effort, and led to the collapse of anti-war sentiment. News of the treaty arrived shortly thereafter, halting military operations. The treaty was unanimously ratified by the United States on February 17, 1815, ending the war with no boundary changes.

Thoughts? Anaruna(talk)

P.S. - Anaruna is me, RockDrummerQ, I've had my username altered. Just so there's no confusion!

I don't think that we should be saying, in wp's voice, that New Orleans "restored American honour"; that's a really subjective judgment and needs to be framed as "was seen as restoring". Likewise, I think it's important to note that the British weren't so much supporting Indian raids or trying to set up a buffer state before the war as they were trading guns for furs which the Indians then used to defend themselves against encroaching settlers; I think the way it's framed in this draft portrays British policy in the region as centrally directed and aggressive when it wasn't either until the war started. Rwenonah (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree on the honour front, I've subsequently changed it upon recommendation. The issue of the Indians is a somewhat murky one; I've since re-framed it; how do you think it reads now? Anaruna(talk)

Another point: Shouldn't there be some alternative names in bold at the beginning of the lead? Some like British-American War or (although arguably, it is used sometimes) Second War of American Independence? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any sources I could use in the lead that state the war is sometimes referred by those names? Anaruna(talk)

Rwenonah - any further thoughts, or shall I go ahead and make the changes? Anaruna(talk)

I am sorry, but isn't that common knowledge? I mean, British-American War is a redirect and Second War of American Independence is of course in use, as well, ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), which is actually already mentioned in Second American Revolution and Second War of Independence. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

While it may be referred to by some people by other names, the vast majority of references call it the War of 1812 and to put other names at the same level strikes me as misleading. For example I have never heard of it being called the British-American War in Britain or Canada, maybe it is a local US name but certainly hardly notable. The Second War of Independence is sometimes used but by official or reliable historians rather than by popularisers? If it is thought necessary, then some qualifier like raeley or limited use should be added. Dabbler (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem with mentioning alternative names in the lead, even if less known? That's the absolutely normal process in Wikipedia, especially as redirects exist (just like the American War of Independence in American Revolutionary War), which usually should be explained in a Wikipedia lead, instead of just sursprising the reader with a differently named redirected article and not explaining, at least mentioning the alternative. Also the fact that wars often have different names, is nothing special. These two names are undoubtedly established – no one said that they would supersede the clear winner "War of 1812" (they're rather often combined with it) – but that reliable historians use the "Second (American) War of Independence", is not enough for you? That's irritating.

In fact, if you consider one of these terms not to be notable, it would have to be deleted. As long as the redirect and the disambiguation exist, those terms actually are by definition notable for Wikipedia and have to be put in bold in the article they redirect to. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

P. S.: This is the first example that came to my mind, and I'm sorry that it is about physics and not military conflicts: The Beer–Lambert law is named after Lambert and Beer, although it was discovered by Bouguer and much later refined by Beer, while Lambert did not contribute to it and also himself never claimed that, only quoting from it and calling it Bouguer's law himself. So, while in 99.9 % of the cases the law is called Beer-Lambert or Lambert-Beer, the alternative name Beer–Lambert–Bouguer law is also in bold in Wikipedia's article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

So why have you not included Mr Madison's War which is much better known name and is also a Wikipedia redirect page in your list of suggested additions? The lead (which some claim is already too long) would be clogged up by lots of extraneous and not very well known alternative names. Perhaps there could be a small sub section of alternative names in the article rather than a long list of bolded names in the first sentence. Dabbler (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Map showing the northern theatre of the War of 1812

This map is wrong, particularly in how it shows Morrisburg in Lower Canada, east of Montreal. Morrisburg lies on the St. Lawrence River, west of Montreal in Upper Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.67 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of Canada and Canadian

I'm struck by the formulation of this article as involving three parties, the Americans, the British, and the Canadians. Would it be more accurate to rewrite this article without the Canadian nationalist bent that permeates it? Shouldn't Canadians be referred to as colonists or colonists of the colony of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, etc.?

There is also an unsupported assertion about the performance of "Canadian militia." First, no such force existed, and second, the link doesn't take you to something that supports that determination, i.e., an expert, contemporary assessment.

Bemcfarland (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

spurious character

There is a "to|invade" in the text which should probably read "to invade". 194.126.175.154 (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. As of now, the typo seems to have been fixed. Wcmead3 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

American Expansionism

This section needs organizing and shortening. The discussion seems repetitive, dwelling more than seems necessary on the uncertainty re. the role of expansionism in starting the war. Wcmead3 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The length and emphasis is WP:UNDUE here. We need the causes of the war give context for this article, but no more; the subject of this article is the war itself. I propose the majority of this section after the first paragraph be moved/merged to Origins of the War of 1812. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of it came out of arguments over the shape of the article. I believe that is in the past and yes it should be shortened.Tirronan (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Usage of the Word "Indians"

I noticed the words "Indian," "Indians," etc. throughout the article. I just went looking around to verify, and I came to the conclusion that the usage of the word "Indian" in this article is misleading. The correct word or term to use in this case would be "Native Americans," because we are not Christopher Columbus and we do not live in 1492. As we all know, there is a big, significant difference between "Indian" and "Native American." Do you agree, or am I simply incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.41.70 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The subject has come up a few times. I believe that the term "Indians" is most commonly used in the sources. Native American is a confusing term to use for people in both America and British North America. I suppose Native British North Americans would probably be more confusing still. TFD (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand the desire to right the great wrongs and stop using this term, but I can't really argue that it is not widely used by academic sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually as this article is written in Canadian English, the applicable modern term is not "Native Americans" but "First Nations" or "indigenous people". Neither of which is probably used much in any sources so we would have to determine who the sources were referring to. Dabbler (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hell I'm only part Indian and I'm getting offended. How about this... just for fucking once why don't we send a nice email to the tribes involved and ask them how they would prefer to be addressed collectively?Tirronan (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The term tribe is problematic too. TFD (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You, know you go to France and they tell you that they are French. Here Academics tell us what to call them and I find it just offensive as hell. I'd rather the Nation's Councils tell us what they would be called.Tirronan (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

France is a nation not many nations, each of whom have different names to refer to themselves, such as Huron or Mohawk. It's Eurocentric to think of them as one nation and there has never been a political organization that represented all of them. Incidentally, Germans don't call themselves German, that was a name applied to their tribes by the Romans and means "neighbors." The French call the country "Allemagne," which was the name of one ancient tribe. TFD (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You are making my point. I've sent off some emails to see if the various nations have a collective term they have agreed upon that they want to be used. I'm Cherokee and Cree, which means they know zip about Navajo, and about as much in common as my right foot and a hoof.Tirronan (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Why should they have a common term? Do Cree think they are part of a group with Navajo? TFD (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This web page has a guide for Canadian English (the anguage of this article) terms which should be used to refer to the indigenous population as a group rather than as individual nations/tribes/bands etc. Just as we refer to French or Germans or Greeks but they are all included as Europeans.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TERMINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR USAGE This is what it has to say about the term "Indian"

Indian

“Indian” is the legal identity of an Indigenous person who is registered under the Indian Act.

One story about the origin of the term “Indian” dates back to Christopher Columbus, who mistakenly thought he had reached the East Indies, so referred to the people in the lands he visited as “indios” which is Spanish for Indian.

Can:

• Use in direct quotations
• Use when citing titles of books, works of art, etc.
• Use in discussions of history where necessary for clarity and accuracy

Dabbler (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like the final word to me, thanks Dabbler. Tirronan (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War of 1812. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010190744/http://www.historiclewiston.org/history.html to http://www.historiclewiston.org/history.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.princedeneufchatel.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ucpress.edu/op.php?isbn=9780520009967

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War of 1812. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302020848/http://www.kynghistory.ky.gov/history/1qtr/warof1812.htm to http://www.kynghistory.ky.gov/history/1qtr/warof1812.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Result on this page needs to be changed.

The stated result of this war is incorrect and needs to be changed!

The British never desired let aone tried to invade the USA during this war. The Brits were in a position to raid the Eastern seaboard at will and force the USA to quit the war. The USA attempted to invade Canada and were soundly defeated.

The war was clearly a BRITISH VICTORY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Eyre (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

According to policy, we have to report what expert sources say, rather than our own interpretation. I think that usually when a war ends with few or no concessions by either side, it is considered a stalemate, even though one side was the aggressor and the other the defender. TFD (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As the United States achieved its war aims (annexing Canada was not one of them), it is hard to attribute the war's outcome as a defeat. Had the annexation been one of the administration's aims, it is unlikely it would have been able to get a declaration of war.--Bemcfarland (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

TFDBemcfarland Daniel Eyre in this case, the experts differ in opinion, based on their nationality. Also, the war results is seen differently, depending on what country you are in. British and Canadian Historians tend to see it as a victory. US historians tend to see it as stalemat. To avoid WP:BIAS both these viewpoints should be inserted into the results box. The war is seen as a Victory in Britain and largely Canada (because they achieved their stated goals), and as a stalemate by the US. I have long argued, that where there is a difference of opinion by two countries, that should be reflected in the results, rather than just having a US centric viewpoint reflected, as is the case here. The fact that the results shows the US viewpoint, and doesn't reflect the UK/Canadian viewpoint is bias. If you three are ok, I would like to change the results box to indicate this differeing of opinions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

This areticle is ver US centric and insome cases is not correct. An obvious example is this sentence below. It is well known and widely known without dispute that british ships only impressed British born sailors and not all and any American sailors as is suggested

- "Britain impressed American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy."

- "Britain impressed Bitish-born sailors, claiming to be US citizens, serving on American merchant ships, into the Royal Navy." 46.208.27.145 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, it is well known that American merchant ships had attracted a number of British sailors, Royal Navy deserters or British born citizens. The Admiralty specified that ONLY British subjects were to be taken back, however they saw fit. It is noted though that “how to identify which men were British was left to the discretion of the commanders on the scene” especially since in 1792 the US began issuing passports for Seamen, but it is also noted that many deserters bought these and therefore the Admiralty outright rejected their use. Sources: Free trade and Sailors rights in the war of 1812 by Paul A Gilje, and Six Frigates by Ian Toll.Americatcp (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea that there was no abuse of pressing powers is extremely difficult to justify. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the article should reflect that neither have ever been proved. The Admiralty always denied it (and also only ever sanctioned it against british subjects, they never allowed American sailors to be pressed) the article should state that American sailors “claimed” to have been pressed into the Royal Navy, which the RN has consistently always denied. Again, this article is written wholly with an American bias.Americatcp (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request.

On the long term consequences section in "Britain" it is put by American historian Donald Hickey argues that

-"Hickey argues that for Britain:

the most important lesson of all [was] that the best way to defend Canada was to accommodate the United States. This was the principal rationale for Britain's long-term policy of rapprochement with the United States in the nineteenth century and explains why they were so often willing to sacrifice other imperial interests to keep the republic happy.[271]"

This is not the lesson that Britain received from the war of 1812, in fact within the nineteenth century Britain bowed to no demands of the United States and none were mentioned within the Treaty of Ghent, ratification's exchanged on the evening of 17 February 1815, no territory had been due to change hands. Despite the British occupation of parts of northern Maine since September 1814, news of American successes reaching London in October had caused the British peace Commissioners to relinquish earlier territorial claims. The British found no reason to accommodate the United States in it's means of defending Canada, it had not needed to accommodate any single demand by the US during the entirety of the war. In late August Gallatin wrote to Monroe "I have the most prefect convition that, under the exisiting unpropitious circumstances of the world, America cannot by a continuance of the war compel Great Britain to yeild any of the maritime points in dispute, & particularly to agree to any satisfactory agreements on the subject of impressment; & that the most favourable terms of peace that can be expected are the status quo ante bellum"

The British were able to defend Canada, and did so time and time again during the war, the Royal Navy blockade helped this and the unequivocal command of the oceans. In the coming century the British surrendered no maritime rights and maintained the dominant military power.

The section should be removed from the article. Americatcp (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

United States return to internal taxation

I've run across referrals to a return to internal taxation during the War of 1812. Is this true and what impact did it have?Tirronan (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Gallatin did NOT want internal taxes. Kagin writes: In 1812 "Gallatin suggested a 100 percent increase in the tariff. In his report, the Treasury Secretary justified this proposal on the ground that 'this mode (increased duties) appears preferable . . . to any internal tax.' The result of this policy was the absence of any system by which internal revenues could be collected, an error in policy which Gallatin conceded in 1831 when he admitted that he should have recommended such taxes in 1812." [ Kagin The Journal of Economic History 44#1 (Mar., 1984), p 71.] so he relied on loans from state banks and on paper money (he issued US Treasury notes that could be used to pay taxes) Madison called for internal taxes in 1813 and "Congress halfheartedly passed a few direct levies" No luck. " As Gallatin had dismantled all the internal revenue machinery in 1801-1806, it took a year to collect even the small, inadequate amount legislated." It got worse. "Anti-war proponents, especially in New England, balked at every effort to get them to help. Indeed, the Federalist New England press declared that no true friend of the country would be found among the subscribers to such loans. Opposition was so great that advertisements for war bonds in Boston papers had to promise anonymity to would-be subscribers." [Kagin] What happened?? More and more bonds, more and more paper money (Treasury notes), no new taxes. The Treasury notes, Kagin & others state, were a success. The Treasury notes were all recalled by 1817. Rjensen (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"""Thank you.Tirronan (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)