Talk:War of 1812/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Specific proposals to briefly cover Tippecanoe

If anyone has ideas and proposals to briefly cover Tippecanoe in terms of simple facts, this is the place to do it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments should be made under the respective proposal(s)

Proposal 1

In 1800 William Henry Harrison was appointed governor of the newly formed Indiana Territory. He was an ardent expansionist and sought to secure title to the area for settlement. He negotiated land cession treaties with the Miami, Pottawatomie, Lenape, and other tribes in which 3,000,000 acres were acquired by the United States at the 1809 Treaty of Fort Wayne. The leader of the Shawnee, Tecumseh, opposed the Treaty. He traveled through tribal lands, urging warriors to abandon their chiefs to join his effort, threatening to kill chiefs who favored the treaty, building a resistance at Prophetstown. In 1810, Tecumseh and Harrison met where Tecumseh demanded nullification of the treaty and the lands returned to the tribes. Harrison disagreed, insisting each tribe had individual and separate arrangements with the United States. Tecumseh maintained that he would ally with the Americans if all the lands were returned, but also threatening an alliance with the British if they were not. Before that, however, British agents had already sought to secure an alliance with Tecumseh in 1810, but he was reluctant because he recognized that the British had ulterior objectives and that they had once fought with them on the frontier. Harrison did not receive Tecumseh's plan, or his brother's presence at Prophetstown favorably and now believed military force was the only solution. The Secretary of War sent orders to maintain peace with the tribes, but stipulated to attack if hostilities erupted. Harrison sent a series of letters to Tenskwatawa with a number of demands, accusing his followers of raids and murdering whites in Illinois and ordered non-Shawnee expelled from Prophetstown. On the night of November 6, Tenskwatawa arranged a preemptive strike against the Americans, with the primary objective of murdering Harrison. The warriors began to surround Harrison's army but as dawn came they were discovered and the Battle of Tippecanoe followed, where the Confederacy was defeated and Prophetstown was burned. Tecumseh's confederacy, in alliance with Britain, was now ready to engage in war against the United States. In 1812 in the face of mounting issues Madison finally declared war against Britain.

Comments:

I think proposal 1 is too long. Also, it doesn't explain why the battle was significant to the War of 1812. While it mentions that Tecumseh would ally with Britain in the War, it doesn't explain how, when or why this alliance came about. TFD (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it does. The 'when' occurred after the Indian defeat at Tippecanoe, which would also explain the 'why', while the 'how' is easily ascertained. Any significance to the War of 1812 is with the idea that it helped convince Madison of Britain's overall involvement in the affairs of the United States and that it set the tone for the British/Indian engagements in that region during the actual war. If you can offer a better account we can consider it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a connection is obvious to you does not mean it is obvious to everyone and articles should always explain connections. You're saying that the battle convinced Madison of Britain's obvious involvement although of course Britain was not involved. TFD (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If the British were giving aid to the Indians, as they always have at one time and another, then Britain, of course, was involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Taylor, 2010, in particular shows how Madison felt about Tippecanoe and the British involvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Your first source says the Republicans endorsed Harrison's claim that the Indians were armed by the British. The fact that a political party endorsed a claim does not necessarily mean the claim is accurate. This isn't 1984 where we accept everything a party says as truth. TFD (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

TFD — Republican endorsement gives the idea much more credence than not. In any case, the statement is used to demonstrate that Madison and the Republicans believed that the Indians were being armed by the British, per your above contention: "You're saying that the battle convinced Madison of Britain's obvious involvement although of course Britain was not involved." Most people were convinced of British support for the Indians long before Tippecanoe anyway. By now the idea that the British were arming the Indians to help them prevent American expansion in the Northwest should be obvious for you. Madison was also receiving reports of British involvement with Tecumseh's Confederacy, (Pirtle, 1900, p. 10) unless you prefer to assume that he had no intelligence capacity out there in the field and was just making wild guesses all along. Madison's knowledge of these affairs are supported by other sources, one of which (Tunnell, 1998, p.13) was right in front of you while you busy replying. It's okay to have a POV, here in Talk, so long as you're not blinded by it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not Republican support of an idea gives it credence is irrelevant since we are not supposed to weigh evidence and come to our own conclusions. That's what expert sources are for. TFD (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The source clearly indicates that this is what Madison believed, as has been explained for you. Such knowledge is supported by the other sources which you seem to be ignoring. Nothing fantastic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Although as you say it "indicates what Madison believes," you provided it as a source that the British supported Tecumseh before Tippecanoe. In fact it's not even a source for what Madison believed, since we don't know how honest he was about his reasons for declaring war. TFD (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Tunnell, 2000, covers the British support for Tecumseh's Confederacy in the months leading up to Tippecanoe. Clearly Madison saw the British and their involvement as something not to be taken lightly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

•         "Madison and the Republicans endorsed Harrison's claims that Tippecanoe was a great victory over bloodthirsty brutes armed by the British." - Taylor, 2010, p. 117
•         "All during the summer of 1811 the War department was in receipt of letters from Indiana, Illinois and near the British lines, telling of operations of the British to foment hostilities between the Indians and the whites." - Pirtle, 1900, p. 10
•         "The plan of the celebrated confederacy, which was to have been headed by Tecumseh and the Prophet, had their origin in British councils." -- Buff / Drapper, 1995, p.290
•         "About the period of Winnemac's visit, an Indian belonging to the Iowa tribe, told general Harrison, that two years before, a British agent visited the Prophet, and delivered a message to him. The object was to induce the Prophet to persevere in uniting the tribes against the United States, but not to make any hostile movement, until the signal was given him by the British authorities." Drake, 1852, p.117
•         "Tecumseh certainly did make a journey to speak to possible allies, in June and July of 1808. The chief visited the British post of Fort Maiden at Amherstburg on the Canadian side of the Detroit River. Responding to British invitations, he renewed his friendship with their agents without committing himself to supporting the king if another war with the United States occurred." - Sugden, 1996, p.158
•         "He visited the British at Fort Maiden with Potawatomis, Ottawas, Winnebagoes, and Sacs in his entourage. On November 15 Tecumseh gave Indian agent Matthew Elliott the impression that "the confederacy is almost general" and requested supplies for a defensive war against the United States. - Sugden, 1996, p.163
•         "The British continued to support their former allies during the post-Revolution period, in their own efforts to prevent United States expansion." - Tunnell, 2000, p. 8
•         "Although Harrison was not sure of how much British support the Indians were getting, there was a common perception that a British-supported Indian war was likely. Harrison felt that he should crush the Indians before the British could openly aid them." - Tunnell, 2000, p. 38

•         "The battle pitted the regular and militia forces of William Henry Harrison, the governor of the territory, against the warriors of Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was attempting to create an Indian tribal confederacy with British support. - Tunnell, 2000, Forward

Proposal 2

In 1800 William Henry Harrison was appointed governor of the newly formed Indiana Territory. He was an ardent expansionist and sought to secure title to the area for settlement. He negotiated land cession treaties with the Miami, Pottawatomie, Lenape, and other tribes in which 3,000,000 acres were acquired by the United States at the 1809 Treaty of Fort Wayne. The leader of the Shawnee, Tecumseh, opposed the Treaty, believing lands were commonly owned by all Indian tribes. He traveled through tribal lands, urging warriors to abandon their chiefs to join his effort, threatening to kill chiefs who favored the treaty denouncing chiefs whom he regarded as corrupt for selling their lands, while building a tribal confederacy at Prophetstown. In November he requested supplies from British Indian agent Matthew Elliott at Fort Malden. Madison received numerous reports that the British were helping Tecumseh in this effort by keeping the Confederacy well equiped, while newspapers frequently published accounts of Indian raids and depredations on white settlers, many of whom had fled their homes. Madison and Harrison were convinced that an attack on the Confederacy was now necessary, as Tecumseh's Confederacy was determined to engage in war against the United States with Britain's support. On November 7, 1811 the Confederacy launched a surprise attack on Harrison's camp where the Battle of Tippecanoe was fought, resulting in a Confederacy defeat and the subsequent burning of Prophetstown. However, the defeat provoked several more Indian raids in the Winter and Spring of 1812. The battle of Tippecanoe and its aftermath intensified American hatred for the British, while producing enormous support for the war in the Twelfth Congress. By summer, in the face of mounting issues with the British, Madison finally declared war against Britain.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

I've not had time to look at this properly but a quick look reveals some serious issues:

• "...as Tecumseh's Confederacy was now ready to engage in war against the United States" is an opinion, not a fact, and should be presented as such.
• Pirtle p10 does not support the claim that Tecumseh threatened to kill chiefs who favoured the treaty.
• As you've drawn attention to the source, I think that the British telling Tecumseh not to show hostility towards the Americans, should be included.

There's probably more.--Ykraps (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The whole purpose of Tecumseh's confederacy was to engage the Americans, albeit to keep them out of their territory. That he traveled far and wide to selectively recruit tribes hostile to the Americans for that purpose and the fact that they launched a surprise attack on Harrison's camp is consistent with the idea that they were at least determined, if not eager.

• "General Clark, writing to the War Department from St. Louis, July 3, 1811, reported as follows: All the information received from the Indian country confirms the rooted enmity of the Prophet to the United States, and his determination to commence hostilities as soon as he thinks himself sufficiently strong. His party is increasing, and from the insolence himself and party have lately manifested and the violence which has lately been committed by his neighbors and friends, the Pottawatomies, on our frontiers, I am inclined to believe the crisis is fast approaching.”(Emphasis added)
• Tecumseh's six-month tour of the Indian country between August 1811 and January 1812 was one of the most ardent efforts on behalf of eighteenth and nineteenth-century pan-Indianism, and was a significant prelude to Indian participation in the War of 1812.

There are more than enough sources and established facts to support the idea that the Confederacy was determined to stop the Americans, and that this idea should not be presented merely as someone's notion. Yes, we can add that the British wanted to avoid war during the months leading up to Tippecanoe, but at the same time they were indeed providing the Confederacy with record amounts of arms and supplies. While we're at it, we can also say that Harrison and Tecumseh met several times in 1810 and 1811 with the hopes of peacefully resolving the problem over land accusitions, all the while Indians raids were still occurring, and long before Harrison finally moved on Prophetstown. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• The first source is clearly giving General Clark's opinion but even he doesn't opine that Tecumseh was ready. In fact he thinks the complete opposite, "As soon as he is sufficiently strong". The second source doesn't mention Tecumseh's readiness at all and nor do any of the sources as far as I can tell. Do you have a source that says the British supplied "record amounts of arms and supplies" or are you just making stuff up again? I still can't see where Pirtle says "Tecumseh threatened to kill chiefs who favoured the treaty".--Ykraps (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You need to change your tone if we're going to discuss this civilly. I've not made anything up, and have taken the time to make proposals here in Talk, rather than just sticking this in the narrative without any discussion, thank you. Clark said Tecumseh was determined, and after Tecumseh had made many journeys to recruit other tribes, and after making routine arrangements with the British to get arms, this is what the proposal will and now says. This really shouldn't be anything amazing, as by the time the battle at Tippecanoe occurred they were indeed ready, obviously. That they were conducting raids beforehand also supports this idea. I've read at least twice that Tecumseh was furious over the idea that some chiefs had struck land deals on their own with the Americans, and indeed threaten them, and their followers, with death, if they didn't comply with the confederacy. However, I'll have to relocate the statement and sources that says this as I've consulted dozens of sources at this point, otherwise I'll be happy to remove that item from the proposal and make any other changes that may be necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Tippecanoe: "The eager warriors, thirsting for blood and believing in their immunity from hurt, rushed upon the camp of the Americans in the darkness of the night..."

The statement about Tecumseh threatening to kill Chiefs has been temporarily striken and replaced with one that states Tecumseh's regard for them, that he "denounced" them for being corrupt, per Smelser, 1969. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to do with article improvement

Most of your commentry here has been unsubstantiated claims and speculative musings; including, but not limited to, your assertions that: President deliberately targetting Little belt's rigging with the wrong sort of ammunition,[[1]] captured merchant ships were used as warships by the Royal Navy,[[2]] and that Indians were racist and wanted to fight each other all the time.[[3]] Given your track record, I think I'm entitled to query whether you've made something up.--Ykraps (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC) PS. Do you have a source that says the British supplied "record amounts of arms and supplies"?--Ykraps (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Along with your personal attack that I'm just making things up, your opening comment is the only musing around here. The idea of record amounts of supplies was mentioned in one of the sources which I can not cite off hand, that supplies were greatly increased to the confederacy in the months leading up to Tippecanoe, understandably, which you seem to find amazing, also. Since the proposal isn't saying this, perhaps you now might want to concentrate on what it does say. Just for the record, while I did claim that Indians harbored deep feelings of racism, which you also seem to find amazing, I never said that they wanted to fight each other "all the time". If all you're going to do is gutter snipe, spend the bulk of your time combing through Talk page edit history of weeks ago, twisting the account and not helping much at all with the proposal, you really should take it somewhere else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed coverage of Tecumseh and his confederacy

Most works on the War of 1812 give ample coverage of the role Tecumseh and his confederacy played in that war, and this article should do so in the same proportion. Since there has been no further comment on proposal 2, itself, in almost two weeks, I'll be going forward with including it in the article shortly, unless there are specific issues that have not been addressed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've not found a single source that details the number of arms that the British were trading with the confederacy. Plenty of sources say that that the British were supplying arms. But, I haven't a clue to the amount. I do know that traders also sold arms to the Confederated Nations, but any claim that the British were supplying most of the arms until the war broke out I'm going to view with a jaundiced eye. I've yet to see supporting facts to back it up.Tirronan (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The proposal isn't about the role Tecumseh played in the war but about his conflict with the U.S. before the war. It's probably already over-covered in British support for Indians. We don't go into details about the Napoleonic wars, such as the French invasion of Russia, although the War of 1812 was arguably part of that larger conflict. TFD (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that an entire paragraph needs to be detailed to this. I believe that it is covered enough in the NW Territory section anyway.Tirronan (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Tirroran — There are dedicated articles for all major topics covered, often at length, in this article. Obtaining weapons from incidental traders was insignificant compared to the British effort. The Indian Confederacy, not some single tribe, was led by Tecumseh (and his brother "the prophet") who commanded as many if not more men than did many generals. We also don't need to see some official inventory chart, or shipping manifests, on weapons to get a good picture of affairs. As you say, there are plenty of sources that cover this and its significance to the war effort in the northwest. The paragraph only makes basic statements covering the general course of affairs involving Tecumseh and the war without getting into minute details. The sources frequently cover Tecumseh in great measure. Latimer, 2007, 1812, War with America, a book that openly states in the introduction that it is of the British perspective, devotes an entire chapter to Tecumseh, with numerous references to him throughout the rest of the book. Most texts on the war cover Tecumseh's role and involvement with the British in significant measure. There are a good number of works in our Bibliography that are entirely devoted to this major figure.
  The topic needs to be presented in the article in same proportion as many texts on the war do. Will see what I can do with merging this, as necessary, with the existing account in the British support for Indians section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• TFD — The proposal doesn't mention the Napoleonic wars, or the French invasion of Russia. Tecumseh's 'role' is a figure of speech. We cover his involvement with the British and the Americans, but we shouldn't ignore his role as the leader of the Indian Confederacy. There is current coverage to this effect already in the article, but remains very brief. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 3

. . .

Sources

• Buff, Rachel (Spring 1995). "Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa: Myth, Historiography and Popular Memory". Historical Reflections. 21 (2). Berghahn Books: 277–299. JSTOR 4129908.
• Drake, Benjamin (1852). Life of Tecumseh and of his brother the prophet;. Cincinnati, H.S. & J. Applegate & co.
• Cave, Alfred A. (2006). Prophets of the Great Spirit. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-1555-9.
• Hacker, Louis Morton (March 1924). "Western Land Hunger and the War of 1812: A Conjecture". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 10 (4). Oxford University Press: 365–395. JSTOR 1892931.
• Hickey, Donald R. (1989). The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. Urbana; Chicago: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-01613-0.
• Hitsman, J. Mackay (1965). The Incredible War of 1812. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781896941134.
• Jortner, Adam (2011). The Gods of Prophetstown: The Battle of Tippecanoe and the Holy War for the American Frontie. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1999-0959-9. and the Holy War for the American Frontier. Oxford University Press.
• Langguth, A. J. (2006). Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-2618-9.
• Pirtle, Alfred (1900). The battle of Tippecanoe: read before the Filson club, November 1, 1897. Louisville, Ky., J. P. Morton and company, printers.
• Pratt, Julius W. (1925). Expansionists of 1812. New York: Macmillan.
• Smelser, Matshall (March 1969). "Tecumseh, Harrison, and The War of 1812". Indiana Magazine of History. 65 (1). Indiana University Press: 24–44. JSTOR 27789557.
• Sugden, John (Autumn 1986). "Early Pan-Indianism; Tecumseh's Tour of the Indian Country, 1811-1812". University of Nebraska Press: 273–304. doi:10.2307/1183838. JSTOR 1183838. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Sugden, John (2013). Tecumseh: A Life. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-1-4668-4904-4.
• Sugden, John (June 2000). "Tecumseh's Travels Revisited". Indiana Magazine of History. 96 (2). Indiana University Press: 150–168. JSTOR 27792243.
• Taylor, Alan (2010). The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4000-4265-4.
• Tunnell, Harry Daniel (2000). To Compel with Armed Force: A Staff Ride Handbook for the Battle of Tippecanoe. Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.
• Turner, Wesley B. Turner (2000). The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won. Dundurn. ISBN 978-1-7707-0093-2.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2021

Under Origin, sentence 5, last word: misgiving is a noun meaning "a feeling of distrust or apprehension." Change to misleading, an adjective meaning "leading into error." Thanks. Stony Lonesome (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Living Concrete (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is tagged for review for WP:NPOV, but there doesn't appear to be any discussion on the matter, nor do any existing discussions appear to invoke the issue. Can this tag be removed? -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-: May I ask if you have read the article? I have just read the Origins section and I'm already seeing problems. This section very weasely states "During the nineteenth century, historians generally concluded that war was declared largely over national honour, neutral maritime rights and the British seizure of neutral ships and their cargoes on the high seas". That may be true, although not exclusively so, but 20th and 21st century historians generally agree that American expansionism was another major cause. The first mention of this is a high profile, unchallenged, opinion of a single historian calling it a myth, while the national honour theme, which a number of historians claim was not a cause but an afterthought, is not criticised and pushed to the fore. Does any of this seem neutral to you? You will also find plenty of discussion in the archives.--Ykraps (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

well the notion "but 20th and 21st century historians generally agree that American expansionism was another major cause. " is not true. This ideas fourished in the 1930s but has been dormant in the scholarly literature for decades--although it is still taught at the high school level in Canada. Rjensen (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hardly dormant. it features prominently in nearly every work of 21st century and even those that question whether it influenced Madison's decision to go to war don't dismiss the idea entirely. If only that was the only problem with the article.--Ykraps (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ykraps: I have read the article, though not incredibly critically, but I didn't mean for my comment to suggest there were no problems with it. I asked this as an open question, to see if a relevant discussion were necessary. If previous discussions have not reached a conclusion regarding edits to rectify this lack of neutrality, that would suggest the lack of neutrality is itself contested. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you've probably been around long enough to know how a process can be derailed. I would suggest reading the talk pages and article.--Ykraps (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ykraps, a great deal of attention went into addressing your concerns. I'm disappointed that you feel that the article is NPOV to date. There is a view, mostly from Canadian's, that holds that the war was fought for American greed for Canadian land. Unfortunately, this is a well-recorded event in the American government. I feel like it would be far more accurate to classify that view on the American side as complex, confused, and ultimately, unanswered. The drive to the west was a factor in American thinking. American detestation of British involvement on our continent, is in my opinion, uncontestable. But, to my knowledge, this was mostly driven by maritime issues. The NPOV tag should be removed.Tirronan (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The British support for Indian nations section displays an image of a British officer paying Indians for scalps. Instead of presenting this as the propaganda it was, the caption leaves the reader with the impression that this actually happened. The fact you see this as neutral says a great deal.--Ykraps (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The War of 1812 was "mostly driven by maritime issues", it turned on issues of national honor regarding the international principle of self-determined (voluntary) citizenship and the territorial integrity guaranteed in the Anglo-American peace treaty signed in Paris. Please do note: While held in British captivity, over years during the War of 1812 for some, each time it was offered, NO American sailor black or white, slave or free ever renounced their US citizenship to become a British subject; Americans fought for their international right to citizenship in a Second War of American Independence, See Black Jacks: African American Seamen in the Age of Sail by W. Jeffrey Bolster.

Regardless of any misrepresentation by Canadian authors past or present, prior to and during the War of 1812, on Great Britain’s part there was territorial expansion violating the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Britain retained six (6) forts in the Great Lakes and Ohio County (Virginia) region after the 1783 Treaty of Paris ceded to the US by the British, as the Native Americans had ceded them to the French, who subsequently ceded them to the British in the 1763 Treaty of Paris. THOSE SAME FORTS lay in the same territory ceded by tribes in 1766 treaties to Britain, territory that become the western expansion of Quebec southward to the Ohio River. IN CONTRAST, the US with little or no regular army maintained NO forts in Treaty-ceded territory of Canada, it financed NO Indian raids on British subjects, its ships kidnapped NO British subjects to serve in overseas wars and against their countrymen by the hundreds, as did the British.

British territorial expansion during the War of 1812-1815 included reoccupying forts in New York, previously ceded in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and because they were still outposts of previous British imperial territorial encroachment, the forts that had a second time diplomatically ceded by British treaty in the 1794 Jay Treaty, a one-sided overture that lost John Adams his reelection in 1800. But they had remained occupied as military depots those dozen years to supply surrogates in war operations against US citizens in contravention the 1783 Peace in territory ceded by Britain to the US in 1783:

In New York state where Britain maintained territorial designs, they never relinquished military garrisons at Fort Niagara, Fort Shelby (Oswegatchie), and Fort Ontario. Those in the Northwest Territory were: Fort Miami (Indiana), occupied by the British and their military proxies until 1790; Fort Mackinac likewise until 1796 and reoccupied in 1812, and Shelby (Lenoult) for a dozen years extending British claims into treaty-ceded US territory, until late 1813.

That 1783 Treaty was concluded on terms favorable to Britain: i) end the American Revolution freeing British military assets for their Bourbon War in the Caribbean Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and Indian Ocean; ii) allow the British merchants to recover their place and replace French commerce to cement US as a British-allied granary for the Napoleonic wars and denying it to France; iii) return captured Bermuda to Britain. While the British ceded the Massachusetts county of Maine; (iv) other than access to Newfoundland fishing banks, the US made no further claim on the 1600s Massachusetts county of Nova Scotia (modern Nova Scotia & New Brunswick) settled my New Englanders after the Expulsion of the Acadians. The separate negotiation of a peace between the US and Britain forced a Bourbon settlement with Britain signed at Versailles also named Treaty of Paris, which deferred the impending Spanish-French invasion of Jamaica; at the time of the Anglo-American peace, British land and naval forces in North America were transferred to Jamaica and Gibraltar to see action there against their remaining foes.

p.s. and, NO, had Britain successfully taken New Orleans with the veterans who had defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, they would NOT have relinquished the Mahan 'choke point' at the mouth of the Mississippi River --- any more than they had done for Fort Mackinac at the 'choke point' at Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Superior, --- or any more than they have done between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea at Gibraltar - despite all international law, diplomacy, plebiscites and petitions over the succeeding centuries, you see.

s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

INSERT two previous off-topic comments relocated to sub-sections below: #Were US sailors joining the British Navy? And #Were free and enslaved black sailors "US citizens"?, per Gwillhickers observation of tangential material to the main sub-section topic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The Four Deuces Thank you for stipulating without objection,

a) US Congressional speeches, newspaper editorials, and correspondence by both private citizens and combatants all demonstrate that US national honor was the primary motivator for the US taking on the British Empire at war, at a time that it was the US primary trading partner for a fiscally struggling new nation, and the preeminent global military power at the time, and without any European military allies;

b) The British re-occupied the US-treaty-forts ceded in the British-abrogated 1783 Treaty of Paris and again in the British-abrogated 1794 Jay Treaty. Each fort acreage had previously been ceded by tribes to the French in the late 1600s, and to the English from the French at their Anglo-French 1763 Treaty of Paris.

c) There were no territorial ambitions in narrowly conceived US punitive incursions into Canada and US raids were NOT constituted as occupying armies. The British reoccupied their forts ceded to the US in 1783 and again in 1794, expanding into the US by taking and holding forts as military depots for British proxies to re-occupy territory that tribes had ceded to the British in 1766, and that the British ceded to the Americans in 1783. British proxies further made war on US citizens in violation of the exclusively Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris signed in Paris;

d) The British kidnapped individual US citizens those born in the US both slave and free, black and white, claiming they were British subjects, but the US did NOT reciprocate.

2. When entire officered US crews were captured, the British held them as prisoners of war. Sailors were offered eventual British citizenship were they to enlist in the British Navy, which entailed serving and surviving aboard a British warship until that ship was decommissioned. British sailors were not allowed shore leave, ships were kept at anchorage away from docks. Sailors were paid in script that could be exchanged for Navy-permitted commissaries who would row out to the anchorages to sell needle, thread and sundries.

Maintaining focus, the original contention made by -A-M-B-1996- seems to have been lost. i.e.Is the article and recent lack of discussion here in Talk such that we still need the pov tag? That question isn't being answered here. Agree also with Tirronan, that these issues have been addressed before, and I might add, at length. Discussions were previously abandoned by editors. The last discussion was over Britain's supply efforts to the Indians, a topic which is well sourced in the article. Keeping in mind that this is an article about the War of 1812, it's likely that there will always be some point or topic that an editor will have issue with, as we are seeing - but it typically digresses into endless talk. Filling up the Talk page in this manner has only proven to make POV tag removal impossible. The tag should be there only when the entire article is completely lopsided towards one POV, and none of the issues brought to the table have come close to establishing that. If there are lesser issues, and accounts vary among the sources, we say so, offer both accounts, and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: @ 4-1-1 editors

4 to remove WP:NPOV tag @-A-M-B-1996-, Rjensen, Tirronan, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Gwillhickers:

1 to keep tag on the article until an issue on one image is resolved @Ykraps:

1 to query into the Black Jacks at Dartmoor Prison pagination @The Four Deuces:.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

aside: Were US sailors joining the British Navy?

What's your page reference for the assertion that no American sailor renounced their US citizenship to become a British subject? It's an odd observation, considering that naturalization required an act of Parliament, which was expensive. TFD (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces You will NOT find any general Act of Parliament making British subjects by class action anywhere, because as reliable TFD notes, "naturalization required an act of Parliament, which was expensive". I recommend Black Jacks: African American Seamen in the Age of Sail by W. Jeffrey Bolster to you; there may be a 'search' feature at the link to find your answer. s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My question was what page to look at. I had looked and could not find it. If you can't provide a reference, then I can only assume that you are mistaken. TFD (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces After 1796, “the federal government issued Seamen’s Protection Certificates to merchant mariners, defining them as “citizens” of the United States . . . [they] interacted regularly with customs collectors at home and consuls abroad [as ship’s captains, first mates, purchasers and navigators] at home and consuls abroad on the basis of their citizenship…” [p.5]

- “For about eighteen thousand free blacks, sea service in the War of 1812 defined what it meant to be free and black—to be armed with and working alongside white sailors, but to remain separate from them because of cultural differences…” -at ‘War of 1812’ search.

- “More than 84 percent of the 6,560 American prisoners, black and white, were captured at sea. At ‘Dartmoor Prison’ search: “African American men withdrawing en masse from the Royal Navy in 1813-1814 shared…” Both black and white American sailors serving in the British Navy “delivered themselves up as prisoners of war rather than fight their own countrymen. American prisoners at Dartmoor numbering 1,011 “came directly from the Royal Navy. And the lion’s share were black. African Americans constituted 18 percent of the 6,560 American men admitted to Dartmoor…” - at ‘prisoner of war’ search.

- Many black jacks with US citizenship certificates “expressed a radical African American patriotism, demanding black inclusion (not assimilation) in the United States.” At the search on ‘Dartmoor Prison’ without pagination, “Numerous occasions found ‘the American flag displayed on each of the [segregated] prisons [blacks were held in Prison Number Four, the central barracks]. . . On December 31, 1814, … Black sailors hoisted the American flag or played “Yankee Doodle” in Dartmoor for reasons that transcended race.” s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

In other words, the sources doesn't say that. Approximately 4,000 slaves found freedom during the war by escaping to Royal Navy ships. They are even mentioned in the Star Spangled Banner: "No refuge could save the hireling and slave/From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave." TFD (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary, where some editors here can only see black people through ideological blinders as uniformly plantation-enslaved 1812-1815 -- regardless of their occupation, ages, sex, citizenship or subject status, SOURCES make a distinction among:

a. blacks enslaved on plantations, men, women and children numbering 4000 fled to British warships;

b. black sailors from US warships, confined in British POW camp: 1180 men were (i) free black US sailor-citizens or (ii) enslaved sailors with US citizen certificates;

c. black sailors from British warships, men deserted ship or turned themselves over to British officers as American citizens to be incarcerated in ship's brig or transported to British POW camp (the 'lion's share' of 1000 from the Royal Navy who were over half the American black jacks held at Bartmoor prison, perhaps 600-700 of 1180 blacks).

s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In other words, the sources doesn't say that no American sailor renounced their US citizenship to become a British subject. TFD (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I recall it well for the purpose of discussion thread because the factoid is so stunning. Before I place it in article mainspace, I'll get the page number for you, special.

- on the other hand, No sources say 4000 black men women and children on plantations fleeing slavery became British Navy sailors. No sources say that black jacks serving on US warships were not citizens when they held USG certificates of citizenship. No sources deny there was "desertion en masse" of black sailors from the Royal Navy 1813-1814. No sources assert there was a comparable "voting with their feet" of African Americans from the US Navy to the British Navy.

- Yes, it is true, unlike the four rabbit trails presented to dissuade me. No black jack at Dartmoor Prison took the British offer to sail on a British warship to murder his fellow countrymen - that's how the author represented American black sailor diaries and letters.

- As you now know, and can confirm online with a term search at the book link,

The War of 1812 Black Jacks "expressed a radical African American patriotism, demanding black inclusion (not assimilation) in the United States." -- they were for personal liberty and political freedom, the promise of America as it is written. For intellectual history orientation, all three thought-traditions were represented: Maggie Walker, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

aside: Were free and enslaved black sailors "US citizens"?

I'm more interested in the assertion that no slave ever renounced their citizenship, partly because slaves had no 'citizenship' but also because they joined the British in droves. (Hickey gives a number of 3,600 from the Chesapeake area alone, of whom 550 volunteered to serve). At the end of the war, the main argument preventing the return of slaves was that they were not "captured property" but that they joined voluntarily.--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No, Judge Roger Taney, free black sailors were US citizens onboard US warships in 1812-1815. - - - Serving in a British provincial militia meant the opportunity to desert British service; there was none for a British sailor at anchorage with no shore leave until the decommission of the British warship served on. Also, white and black sailors on a US warship were treated equally, without the deprivations suffered by the enslaved on a Chesapeake Bay plantation (in 1812, the US Navy adopted the use of lime and lemon citrus juice to prevent scurvy following the exemplary "limey" Royal Navy).

- Ykraps Of some interest on this point -- to my knowledge -- the two-hundred year military alliance between Britain and the US began at the Treaty of Ghent, Article the Tenth, "Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object." - ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate.

- The USS Constitution at the Bight of Africa with free and slave black American crew aboard, intercepted slavers under the Monroe administration. But because extraditing the slaver crews to Washington DC was problematic before a majority slave-holding court in a case that would rouse sectional feelings in Congress, the practice aboard US Navy ships was to turn over the crews to a British warship.

- That British captain was authorized by the Royal Navy, on the basis of the US affidavit that the prisoners were a slaver crew, would then declare them "outlaws" by summary court martial and hang them at sea. The US warship would proceed with the surviving enslaved to Sierra Leone to offload the passengers to freedom in the British colony.

s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ykraps from Black Jacks: African American Seamen in the Age of Sail by W. Jeffrey Bolster: Different from the status of 1812-1815 enslaved populations on Chesapeake Bay plantations --- from a search on ‘citizenship’ --- we find on the Introduction, p. 5-6. Seafaring for black America “had been crucial to blacks’ economic survival, liberation strategies, and collective identity-formation.”[p.5] Their status and participation in seafaring varied over time.

- “In 1740 . . . deep-sea maritime labor in the Anglo-American world was largely white, and virtually all seafaring blacks were slaves…” Following the Revolution, northern black males found easy entry into maritime work in an expanding American merchant marine.[p.6] After 1796, “the federal government issued Seamen’s Protection Certificates to merchant mariners, defining them as “citizens” of the United States . . . [they] interacted regularly with customs collectors at home and consuls abroad [as ship’s captains, first mates, purchasers and navigators] at home and consuls abroad on the basis of their citizenship…” [p.5]

- “By 1803 black men (mostly free) filled about 18 percent of American seamen’s jobs. The tide then turned at mid-century.”[p.6] But still the ‘citizenship’ document issued for each black American sailor continued in force. “Frederick Douglass effected his own escape from Chesapeake Bay plantation slavery “with a borrowed Seaman’s Protection Certificate from a liberty-loving black sailor and brazenly struck out for Philadelphia by train.” [p.2] s/TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

None of that negates the fact that thousands of Afro-American slaves sought citizenship of other nations. At the end of the war, the British offered the former slaves the choice of returning to their old lives in the US and unsurprisingly they refused. If they had citizenship, it sounds very much like they renounced it.--Ykraps (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

U.S. case law never determined if blacks were U.S. citizens. Dicta in Dred Scott said they were not, but this issue was made moot by the Citizenship Clause amendment following the Civil War which said that they were. But there was consensus that slaves were not citizens. They were assumed to have the same status as enemy aliens, which was the legal justification for slavery. The position of the government of Upper Canada at the time was that American citizens who emigrated into the British Empire were British subjects or had never ceased to be subjects. This was later enforced by imperial legislation. Another statute determined that foreigners serving in the British Navy became subjects after two years. Otherwise, there was no procedure for immigrants to swear an oath and become British subjects. TFD (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I remember reading in the Civil War of 1812, that there was indeed an oath taken by American settlers crossing over for cheap land offered in Canada. So I am not certain that I agree with all of that.Tirronan (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The author was referring to Lt. Gov. Simcoe's 1792 proclamation, which said that anyone applying for a land grant would have to declare, '"I A. B. do promise and declare that I will maintain and defend "to the utmost of my power the Authority of the King in his Parliament as the Supreme "Legislature of this Province."' It is more similar to denization than naturalization, since they were treated as British subjects at the discretion of the provincial government. In any case, following the war, colonial officials decided they were not subjects and revoked their right to vote. TFD (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, the wording basically outlines what any national or alien should recognize, that they are obliged to obey the laws of the state they happen to be in. TFD (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda?

The image in the British support for Indian nations section, showing a British officer negotiating with an Indian and awarding him with arms for scalps is indeed contentious. However, we know the British were supplying the Indians with weapons on a large scale, and it would be a bit naive to assume they gave no encouragement to the Indians while they were at it. I seriously doubt the British handed out weapons and said 'be nice'. Of course there is no documentary "proof" of this, as what officer is going to enter something like that into his diary or log book? In any case the caption of this image makes no absolute claim as to its nature. It doesn't present the idea as fact, and it doesn't claim the image to be "propaganda". It only describes the image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't like this. It does nothing for the article and as you have pointed out it is contentious and without proof. Like most publications of the period, there was always a political intent. This apparently is one of them. I see no reason that it should be included in the page.Tirronan (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don't insult people's intelligence by pretending the caption is anything other than a weasely attempt to disguise the fact that the print is a piece of propaganda. This edit [[4]] clearly shows that you are someone who would rather readers didn't know this, while your edit summary marks Benn's book as yet another you haven't read. And as the British paid a bounty for live prisoners, the instructions were pretty much, be nice.--Ykraps (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your entire reply was a personal attack and served no other purpose. – The image in question is a cartoon, so it's understood that it is not a document of any particular event, only an idea. The existing caption is simple, describes only the image, not an actual event. On p. 72 Benn describes the image as a cartoon, and that they were often used as propaganda. So we can at least refer to it as propaganda. However, this image by itself, with no example of British propaganda to balance the visual theme, presents a minor pov concern. Nothing that warrants tagging the entire article, btw. Unless we can find a good example of British propaganda to use along side the existing image, with the caption "Both sides used propaganda...", per Benn, we should remove the image entirely and simply quote Benn's referral to propaganda in general. In case anyone needs to know, Benn's book is available for viewing at archive.org and can be borrowed by the hour if you're registered there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame you didn't check the source before accusing me of lying.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Another personal attack, while ignoring everything else in the discussion. Our differences amounted to no accusation of lying. Could you direct your efforts at resolving issues? The original citation read "Benn, et al", with no specific page number. Meanwhile, you seem to be evading the idea presented regarding Benn's statement, that propaganda was employed on both sides, and whether to keep the image. The idea of propaganda is not mentioned once in the entire article. The image in question currently serves as a stand alone image, while there is no other such image offering a British examples. If there are images of propaganda, then there should be a subsection devoted to this topic, or at least some coverage, as every image is supposed to be placed in an appropriate section or paragraph, and there are none for this image. All things considered, the image should be removed at the present time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What? The original citation included the page number until you removed it.[[5]] Why don't you look more closely? If that was the issue, you should have tagged it as such and your edit summary should have reflected that action. Instead, you deleted the entire edit with a summary, "Benn et al says nothing of US propaganda". You are insinuating that I lied about the content of the book even though you haven't even read it yourself! There is a whole fucking chapter dedicated to propaganda, you could not possibly have missed it! Page 72 describes that exact image as an event that never happened and further explains how the British paid Indians for prisoners in order to discourage unnecessary killing. You have acted with extreme bad faith and now you are pretending to be the injured party. Do you not see how that comes across?--Ykraps (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I updated the section on #British support for Indian nations to recast pro-US cartoon caption in a wp:neutral style, rewrote the extended block quote into encyclopedic narrative per wp:style, and added some commonly held knowledge for context throughout the section narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not pro-US, it is anti-British. If the image is to stay, it should be made clear that the event depicted is ficticious.--Ykraps (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

1. During 1812-1815, British military proxies of their 'buffer-state' did scalp fallen enemies in the American Old Northwest.

As I remember, the policy was instigated as imperial policy as a way to certify fruitful British raids commissioned against first French settlers, then against US citizens. It gave a level of confidence to British agents and their licensed trading post operators that the raided dead were not victims of an inter-tribal rivalry (without otherwise requiring a notarized affidavit from an attending British officer), as inter-tribal conflict of any kind did not accrue to advancing British trading policy among indigenous North American tribes.

2. The practice took on a life of its own independent of the original purpose, as these things do in war. By 1812, scalping was widespread on the American frontier, with various actors guilty of it as documented in reliable contemporary records and historical accounts.

- Indeed, several rogue companies of state militias raiding Indian villages were written up for official sanction by their US Army officers for perpetrating the unauthorized practice. I will not use the 'name-shaming' term "barbaric", as it is said to be Eurocentric.

3. The title of the cartoon explicitly identifies the apocryphal nature of events depicted, warfare "as practiced" does not relate an historical event that happened. By the internal evidence of the artifact alone, the cartoon portrayal is of a 'fictitious' nature, just as Ykraps supposes it to be.

4. In the pro-American caption showing Indians scalping victim American soldiers, nothing of the sort is attributed to the British in the War of 1812, only to Native Americans warriors.

- THE CAPTION READS: A pro-US cartoon depicting Indians scalping American soldiers on the frontier, purported to be "as practiced". The article narrative previously contains sourced reporting of British agents supplying scalping knives to tribes raiding American settlements.

- Were this particular cartoon caption to be an issue of balance, an interested editor might post an anti-American apocryphal image showing rogue American militia scalping their Indian dead "as-it-is-practiced" - - - to balance the existing cartoon image of Indian warriors scalping their American dead.

5. THEREFORE, There is no substantive objection to be made on the subject, neither to the cartoon, nor to its new caption. There is no justification to maintain a tag for the entire article for the unsubstantiated question that is now sufficiently answered for the isolated image caption identified by editor Ykraps.

s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion that "nothing of the sort is attributed to the British," the racist cartoon clearly shows a British officer paying the Indians for said scalps. TFD (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As just explained above, raiding British enemies was rewarded on furnishing scalps for victim certification in North America for 150 years. British agents supplied scalping knives to their proxy warriors who actively raided American settlers on US, British-ceded, territory -- as WP:RS Julius W. Pratt establishes in the article narrative.

It was reasonable at the time for the PRO-American propagandist to present an apocryphal cartoon, clearly labelled in the title in block-capitalized letters at the top, "as it is practiced". So no, is not "racist" to imagine British agents providing scalping knives "with some liberality" for the previously established purpose, "as practiced".

What were combative warriors to think? What were American propagandists to think? The image gives us an idea of what both thought at the time, so that contributes to the article. The apocryphal cartoon should remain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that sidesteps the issue brought up. Did it happen? Yes. Care to guess the lifespan of an "Indian Warrior" caught by Americans? That isn't the point. The point is that We've got a cartoon blasting for one side. Gee that is great in an article that is supposed to be neutral. We explain that in the article and not embellish for either side. But then again, that is just me talking crazy.Tirronan (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In his 1955 book, Pratt mentions the "guns and ammunition, tomahawks and scalping knives [that] were dealt out with some liberality by British agents." It might help to point out that these scalping knives were in fact butcher knives used mostly for skinning animals by Indians involved in the fur trade. There's no mention of course that Americans, especially the Kentucky militia, scalped Indians, although they considered it uncivilized to scalp white men. Rather than merely report propaganda, the section propagates it. TFD (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wars are not pretty. And, the behavior of troops, regardless of country, is often less than stellar. A couple of nations fell in with the US. I rather doubt they operated any differently. To me this is bombastic and unacceptable.Tirronan (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this cartoon pending further discussion.Tirronan (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Bias and misleading use of sources in British support for Indian nations sub-section

Hello! You may recall me complaining about the pro-American and anti-Indian bias of this section a couple of months back. Unfortunately, I forgot my randomly-generated password, but I am now back on Wikipedia and I see that the issues in the section have grown worse. Here are the most egregious:

• First, the section makes no mention of American (especially Kentuckian and Ohioan) raids against the tribes of the Old Northwest, which were frequent during the two decades preceding the War of 1812 and played a major role in encouraging them to resist American expansion and ally with the British. As Carl Benn, who is probably the foremost contemporary scholar of Indian involvement in the War of 1812, notes, when modern scholars discuss Indian attacks on American settlers, they must, in the interest of balance, acknowledge that Americans committed similar atrocities against Indians.
• Second, the section claims that the tribes of the Old Northwest had already ceded the territories which Harrison purchased from them during his tenure as Governor of Indiana Territory (modern northern Illinois, central Indiana, and northern Ohio) to the French and British. This claim is cited to two sources: Daniel Tunnell, To Compel With Armed Force: A Staff Ride Handbook for the Battle of Tippecanoe, pg. 16 (https://books.google.ca/books?id=T492AAAAMAAJ&q=british&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=british&f=false) and Alfred Pirtle, The Battle of Tippecanoe, pg. xiv (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ssd?id=mdp.39015021556900;seq=28). If you check the sources using the links above, neither actually makes this assertion on the pages cited in the article. Although the tribes of the Old Northwest acknowledged British and French suzerainty, they never ceded their lands for settlement to either Britain or France. A couple of tribes sold some land in modern Indiana to the Illinois-Wabash Company in the 1770s, but Britain and the U.S. both declared these sales illegal.
• Third, the article ignores the Treaty of Greenville, which the American government signed with the tribes of the Old Northwest in 1795. At Greenville, the U.S. promised never to try to expand into Aboriginal lands west of a line drawn through central Ohio. By purchasing territory in modern Indian, Illinois, and western Ohio, Harrison flagrantly violated this treaty. This blatant breach of faith played a central role in Aboriginal anger at the Americans in the decade before the War of 1812.
• Fourth, the article skips over the tactics which Harrison used to make the tribes of the Old Northwest sell their land between 1800 and 1811. Harrison regularly plied Aboriginal leaders with alcohol to trick them into selling land, and bought land from tribes which lacked any claim to it while ignoring the actual occupants. He also refused to pay Aboriginal tribes the annuities promised them in previous treaties, on which they depended to avoid starvation in the winter, until they sold more land. The fraudulent character of these treaties fuelled the tribes’ anger at the American government and their willingness to ally with Britain
• Fifth, the section claims that Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa wanted to purify Indian society by expelling American settlers, citing Timothy Willig’s excellent book Restoring the Chain of Friendship: British Policy and the Indians of the Great Lakes, 1783 - 1815 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008), page 207. I have access to a copy of this book, and it does not make this claim on page 207, which actually describes Tenskwatawa’s efforts to break the power of pro-American Delaware chiefs by accusing them of witchcraft. In fact, as Willig makes clear on page 210, Tecumseh, Tenskwatawa and their followers wanted to defend the lands held by the tribes of the Old Northwest after the Treaty of Greenville against further American expansion. John Sugden, the best biographer of Tecumseh, also characterizes Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa’s aims as fundamentally defensive.
• The section also argues that the British government wanted to aid Tecumseh’s confederacy as with the goal of “territorial expansion into US lands”, which “had been British policy since the end of the Revolutionary War”, citing Carl Benn, The War of 1812 (Osprey: Oxford, 2002), pg. 18. Benn makes none of these claims; page 18 actually features an engraving of Indian warriors and a description of their guerrilla tactics. The article also cites the same page to claim that British Indian agents armed Tecumseh’s confederacy during the period immediately preceding the Battle of Tippecanoe. Needless to say, Benn does not make this claim anywhere in the book, either.

To summarize, the whole section reeks of pro-American bias and seems designed to cast American efforts to subjugate and dispossess the Indians of the Old Northwest in as positive a light as possible. In the process, it repeatedly cites sources which do not support its claims. The whole section urgently needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I will happily rewrite it as soon as I can edit semi-protected articles, but I would urge someone who can edit the article to delete the paragraphs which lie about the content of Willig, Pirtle, Tunnell, and Benn's books immediately! EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

---

I've found more examples of misrepresentation in the same section!

• The section says that the British reoccupied the posts which they had abandoned after the Jay Treaty in 1813 "as supply depots" in order to wage a war to create a buffer state on American territory. This paragraph cites Sandy Antal, Wampum Denied: Procter's War of 1812 (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1997), pg. 15. First of all, I don't think we should uncritically describe the lands of the Indians of the Old Northwest as "American territory" - and, of course, the British only re-occupied some of the forts abandoned after the Jay Treaty in 1813. But more importantly, as this link (https://books.google.ca/books?id=JJxHK96HoaAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) shows, pg. 15 of Antal's book makes no mention of British plans to establish a buffer state or any events in 1813.
• It also makes the claim that Tecumseh and his followers wanted to create a British-protected state in the Old Northwest "as it became clear that the Americans wanted all of the land ceded to western Quebec for its own national growth", citing Benn, The War of 1812, pg. 18. Obviously, this sentence is ungrammatical. More importantly, however, Benn doesn't mention any of these ideas on page 18, which is, again, a brief description of Indian guerrilla tactics.
• The section also claims that the British began supplying Tecumseh's "band" with arms and ammunition before 1810, citing David and Jeanne Heidler's Encyclopedia of the War of 1812, pages 253 and 392. Page 392 is part of the entry on Norfolk, Virginia, and makes no mention of Tecumseh or the Old Northwest. Similarly, the Heidlers do not mention the British at all on page 253, let alone claim that they supplied Tecumseh and his followers with arms.
• Perhaps the worst example of misrepresentation, however, occurs when the section says that "many [American settlers] ... fled their homes" to escape because of Indian raids in 1811-12, and cites Louis M. Hacker's 1924 article "Western Land Hunger and the War of 1812: A Conjecture", Mississippi Valley Review 10, no. 4 (which can be read here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1892931?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents). Hacker argues at length that the Indians posed no threat to the settlers and had no interest in war, and that the War Hawks and their allies in the press exaggerated and falsified reports of Indian raids to justify war with Britain. In other words, the section cites Hacker's article as proof for the exact claim which it was written to discredit!

Whomever wrote this text clearly lied about the content of the sources which they cited! In the process, they are seriously misinforming the article's readers and attaching the names of serious scholars to false, ahistorical claims which they have never made. Again, someone who can edit the article should delete all of the sentences mentioned above as soon as possible. EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately, we have had a few editors that have taken liberties with the sources. In other words, I have no problem believing your assertions to misquotations. However, the British had no business having any forts on land ceded by them by the Jay Treaty of 1783. I will not support whitewashing that issue. As for the Indian Nations vs. the US. This was an ongoing guerilla war. Ongoing tactics for acquiring Indian territory are well documented by historians. My area of expertise is not in the pre-1812 area of Confederation-American warfare and relations. Why don't you rewrite the sections that you have brought up with proper citation? Just please keep the tone neutral. As to my limited reading on the subject, neither side hesitated to use bloody means whenever possible.Tirronan (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

First, AGREE, you reinforce my previous post, the American militia raiders scalped their Indian dead against US officer orders in the same way Indian renegade raiders scalped their American dead. That background should be included in the section.

Second, AGREE, the section only claims the forts were previously ceded, as found in the citations, the 1763 Treaty of Paris text, and the 1783 Treaty of Paris text. The section should make clear that the French Euro-centric-presumed to transfer their Euro claims to land other than forts and its suzerainty acknowledged by the Indians to the British, and the British Euro-centric-presumed to transfer their Euro claims to land other than forts and its suzerainty acknowledged by the Indians to the Americans, just as EnoughApologetics2 attests to in his post above.

Third, the MOS:label expression “flagrant breach of faith” colors the entire EnoughApologeitic2 post, as Tirronan cautions. Treaties may be renegotiated from time to time among nations. It is not clear that the two brothers initiating American frontier attacks were under the traditional authority of either a tribal werowance, sachem, or a tribal league council.

- On Native American terms, there may have been no justification for their objections to the treaty so far as to unilaterally go to war with no tribal league formed by discussion and mutual agreement among First Nations, only a force of gathered warrior isolates renouncing traditional authority in their diverse tribes.

- Renegade warriors who had never counted coup without loss of life among the raiding warriors, whether for a roach headdress, food, wives or slaves, did sometimes during this period accept arms directly from the British trading post agents to draw support of the young men away from the elected and inherited tribal leaders to form their own bands.

Fourth, AGREE, (a) the negotiating tactics among the American frontier generals with western political ambitions, and (b) the corrupt practices of contractor sutlers investigated and documented by Congressional Committee reports - - BOTH kinds of bad-actors should be described in the narrative and identified as unlawful in the section.

- -See the treatment of the former US General in the American Revolutionary War settled in New Orleans who was a double agent for the Spanish, James Wilkinson. These sorts of combinations caused great suffering among Native Americans violating the laws of the United States. See the Supreme Court case won by the Cherokee, Chief Justice John Marshall presiding.

Fifth, AGREE, all reliable source interpretations of Tecumseh should be included in the section, including those characterizing him taking “defensive” action EAST of the mutually agreed-to line in the Treaty of Greeneville ratified in the US Senate, and prior to any US-sponsored settlement WEST of the line.

- Before purging Thomas Willig from the article as a source, check the edition paginations, and conduct a search on the term “purify” in a digitalized text to see if the citation is on page 217 or 201 rather than a typo ‘207’.

Lastly, AGREE, a mythological, mystical and made-up pro-American BIAS must be resisted here, likewise for the pro-British bias. Among the most flagrant failures to make historical distinctions in the sources, article narrative MUST distinguish between (A) policy conducted according to US law, versus (b-i) individual bad actors advancing narrow personal ambition, (b-ii) rogue state militias later officially censured or court martialed and (b-iii) corrupt sutlers effectively starving entire tribes for financial gain by accepting payment from the US Treasury but never delivering food or supplies.

BIAS on any account should NOT be tolerated in any section of this article. Everything in “American history” done in the name of “America” is NOT objectively advancing by enacted statute by the US Congress. Any indiscriminate co-mingling the FOUR elements of “American” frontier activity in the early 1800s would be imposing its own POV here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 21:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have written up a proposed text for the British support for Indian nations section. I am posting it here, but am collapsing it because it is quite long. It resolves the problems of misrepresentation and incorporates most of the high-quality recent scholarship on the subject. It may be somewhat too long, though. Let me know what you think. EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed new text

The Old Northwest, the region between the Great Lakes, Ohio River, Appalachian Mountains, and Mississippi River, was a long-standing source of conflict in 18th and early 19th-century North America. The Euro-American inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies had long sought to settle the region and expel its indigenous inhabitants, a collection of Algonquian and Iroquoian-speaking peoples which included the Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware, Miami, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Menominee, and Odawa. These tribes, in turn, sought to retain control of the lands which they inhabited Although they generally accepted British sovereignty after 1766, they refused to give up title to their lands. The British government supported them by prohibiting Euro-American settlement west of the Appalachians, which contributed to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. However, after the war, Britain ceded the Old Northwest to the newly independent U.S., ignoring the territory’s indigenous inhabitants. The American government, in turn, encouraged its citizens to settle in the region, disregarding indigenous title to it . The tribes of the region responded by forming a confederacy and going to war with the U.S. The British government continued to occupy forts in the region, which it used to arm these tribes. After the signing of the Jay Treaty in 1794, however, the British government withdrew from the region and abandoned its indigenous allies . The next year, the tribes of the Old Northwest signed the Treaty of Greenville with the American government, in which they agreed to cede most of Ohio. In return, the American government promised that they could retain the rest of the Old Northwest in perpetuity, while privately planning to discard the Greenville line and expand further west. . These plans came to fruition during the administration of President Thomas Jefferson. In 1800, Jefferson organized most of the Old Northwest into a new Indiana Territory, and appointed William Henry Harrison, a politically ambitious expansionist, as its governor. In 1803, Jefferson ordered Harrison to acquire as much indigenous land as possible beyond the line set at the Treaty of Greenville, and instructed him to use deception to achieve this goal Between 1803 and 1809, Harrison secured multiple territorial cessions from some of the region’s tribes, most notably in the Treaty of Grouseland, Treaty of Vincennes, Treaty of St. Louis (1804), and Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809). To secure these treaties, Harrison withheld the annuities that the U.S. government had promised the tribes at Greenville, which some of them needed to avoid starvation, and ignored the title of tribes which refused to sell their lands. In negotiations with tribal chieftains, he plied them with alcohol and even threatened to expose them to settler violence by withdrawing his promises of safe-conduct. These tactics provoked growing resentment among the tribes of the Old Northwest and undermined the credibility of chiefs who supported accommodation with the U.S. . In 1805, Tenskwatawa, a Shawnee, launched a nativist religious movement, which encouraged the tribes of the Old Northwest to reject Euro-American culture and cease selling land to the U.S. His brother, the Shawnee chief Tecumseh, began to organize the tribes into a new confederacy to defend their lands and oppose further American expansion . In 1808, they established a community at Prophetstown, along the Tippecanoe River. Tecumseh refused to recognize the Treaty of Fort Wayne, insisting that no land could be sold to the U.S. without the consent of all the tribes of the Old Northwest. Some indigenous warriors left their tribes to follow Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa, but the two brothers also won the support of many traditional chiefs, such as Roundhead and Main Poc The tribes of the Upper Mississippi Valley and western Great Lakes, such as the Sioux, Sauk, Fox, and Ojibwe, largely rejected Tenskwatawa’s message because of their dependence on the fur trade. However, these tribes also became increasingly hostile to the U.S. in the face of continued Euro-American encroachment on their territory . Attacks by indigenous people on Euro-American settlers and attacks by Euro-American settlers on indigenous people were always common in the Old Northwest. They grew more frequent as tensions mounted between 1803 and 1812. . The British government traditionally maintained the goodwill of the tribes of the Old Northwest by offering them annual gifts, including food and clothing, but also firearms and ammunition, which they used both for hunting and for war. After 1795, the British government directed its Indian agents to cut their costs by minimizing the number of gifts that they distributed to the indigenous tribes of the Old Northwest, and urged the tribes to avoid conflict with the U.S. When the American government threatened war in 1807 over the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, the British government decided to revive its alliance with the tribes of the Old Northwest, whom it saw as a buffer against an American attack on Upper Canada. It offered to ally with them if war broke out between the U.S. and Britain, but urged them not to attack the U.S. until such a war began. It also began distributing gifts on a larger scale . Many Americans blamed the escalating tensions on the frontier entirely on the British, whom they accused of organizing and inciting indigenous raids. These accusations contributed to popular and Congressional support for war with Britain Harrison became increasingly alarmed at the growing threat posed to American expansion by Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa. In 1811, he secured permission from the government to attack Tenskwatawa . He then assembled an army and marched on Prophetstown, taking advantage of Tecumseh’s absence from the region. When Harrison’s army reached Prophetstown, Tenskwatawa’s followers attacked it, but the Americans repulsed them in the ensuing Battle of Tippecanoe. Harrison’s forces then occupied and razed Prophetstown. In the aftermath of the battle, fighting along the frontier escalated, while Tecumseh reconstituted his confederacy and firmly allied it with the British. . The Battle of Tippecanoe also strengthened American hostility to Britain contributing to Congress’ declaration of war in the summer of 1812. During the ensuing war, most of the tribes of the Old Northwest, both those which supported Tecumseh and those of the Upper Mississippi Valley, fought with the British and against the Americans .

Re: POV "ethnic cleansing" in the War of 1812

For reference: A UN report on violence in former Yugoslavia] defined ethnic cleansing as "… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas."

IN A MOST IDIOSYNCRATIC EXHIBIT OF POV, while discussing the War of 1812, EnoughApologetics2 linked 1830 Indian Removal with "ethnic cleansing" POV to a 1812-1815 war with Britain and subsequent peace treaties made with defeated enemies making war on the US. See User talk:EnoughApologetics2 16:40, 28 July 2021.

- Also, that misrepresents the 1830 tragic, unnecessary and unlawful deaths of over 8,000 of 60,000 at the hands of corrupt private sutlers who were responsible for atrociously starving 13% of the transported Native Americans. As Howard Zinn properly assessed Andrew Jackson's policy towards former Native American enemies allied with the British: while in uniform and as president, Jackson made a career of "exterminating Indians". This antipathy continued in his Cherokee-negotiated removal, followed by his coerced removals that were unlawful by Senate-ratified treaties, and unconstitutional by unanimous US Supreme Court ruling.

US government policy of 1830 denied ANY legitimacy to Andrew Jackson and his presidential over-reach to carry out his unauthorized Indian policy. Modern scholars have an obligation to be condemn it as a violation of human rights as well as the US law of the land. It is bad scholarship to "celebrate" Jackson's removal coercions under a euphemistic cover of "Manifest Destiny".

- Further, apart from any obligation to write balanced narrative, historians also have an concomitant educational function to contribute to American VIGILANCE AGAINST

- (a) extra-legal abuses against non-citizens such as Jackson's 1830s Indian Removal, - - "no man is above the law, not even the president", AND

- (b) statute-sanctioned abuses without due process in 1798 of non-US-citizens such as Federalist Adams arbitrary arrest and deportation of French refugees who had attained sponsored STATE CITIZENSHIP in Virginia and Kentucky. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

British 1812 forts in 1783-ceded territory

The British retained their forts since the U.S. had failed to honor articles 4 and 6 of the Treaty of Paris. But I don't see its relevance to the War of 1812. Incidentally the source for the text (Langguth 2006, p. 262) doesn't mention the forts. TFD (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, at the 1783 Anglo-American Treaty of Paris in Article 1, the transfer is made of all British-claimed territory with its Indian-acknowledged suzerainty of British Canada south of the middle of each of the Great Lakes, south down the middle of the Mississippi River to the 31st-degree of North latitude". The provisions of Treaties are NOT wp:original research, they are wp:common knowledge, as no conclusions are drawn concerning boundaries of the sovereign and independent United States territory: "it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries...".

(a) The USG did honor Article 4 and 6 of the 1783 Treaty of Paris; it did so by fulfilling Article 5: "Art. 5: It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States."

(b) You may anachronistically wish the US were a monarchy post-Revolution, but it was not. And until the 1789 US Constitution, there was no constitutional provision by rule of law to collect monies to pay British debtors in US customs houses in ports located in South Carolina, etc. His Britannic Majesty himself acknowledged that the the United States and EACH STATE ENUMERATED SEPARATELY to be "free and independent states". The British government did negotiate separate treaties with the states it considered "independent" apart from any notice to Congress, one of the reasons for the 1789 US Constitution to end that egregiously humiliating British practice. EACH OUTSTANDING COMPLAINT OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT AGAINST POST-WAR CONFISCATION AND PROSECUTION IN THE STATES was adjudicated by Britain with the weaker states independent of Congress to British satisfaction, as the treaties for commerce without Congress were signed.

(c) British-sponsored raids east of the USG-Indian Tribes Treaty Line occurred in the US Northwest Territory of STATE-CEDED lands to the USG. There is no justification for British proxies making war on Revolutionary veterans in eastern Ohio US land grants that belonged to NO offending STATE. At the same time Parliament speeches asserted they had a problem with Atlantic seaboard "sovereign and independent states", His Britannic Majesty chose to conduct trade with His commercial partners. Which was it, it could not have been both King in Council treaty and MP complaining speeches were true for the self-same states.

(d) The War of 1812 was initiated on the US part as a matter of national honor because (i) Britain did NOT recognize US citizenship at sea; (ii) Britain did NOT quit its forts on British-ceded land at 1783, but continued to supply raiding Indians making war on US settlement grants in the EAST of Ohio and south of the Ohio River in Kentucky, Virginia; and (iii) the British monarchy did NOT satisfy Article 4, "creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The treaty was binding on all 13 "free sovereign and independent states," who collectively owned the territory on which the forts were located. Also since the British relinquished the forts following Jay's Treaty of 1794, it was not a cause of the War of 1812, which broke out almost 20 years later. TFD (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, (a) One of our British reliable sources notes that the British supplied their Revolution allies and Canadian fur-trader proxies to war on US settlements of veteran land grants in EASTERN Ohio beyond the Fort Stanwix line, supplies including "scalping knives" in the source, which you deny the source reports. We are disagreed as to what is there at the sourced link.

(b) You advance a theory of US national sovereignty for 1812-1815 which does not stand inspection, I seem to recall a Justice John Marshall majority opinion on the subjet. The US 1789 Constitution advances a federal relationship between the US national government and each individual state governments. The USG has sovereign discretion over its territories without recourse to any state. Art.IV Sec.3 "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States..."

- All states with previous claims to northwestern territory to the Mississippi River in any part, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut, all ceded those land claims to become the "property of the United States" national government, the Northwest Territory, an organized incorporated territory of the US, independent of any admitted state, such as South Carolina where British citizens had outstanding claims from the Revolution in the 1780s pending in 1812, which I would like you to please verify before reasserting it.

(c) There was no USG ambitions on Canada 1813-15, only the desire to reject the invader expanding territorial control continuously since formal 1783 British cession to the US by arming and supplying Indian war against US settlement within the agreed areas of the 1783 Anglo-American Treaty of Paris, to include lands ceded by Indian Tribes first to the British in ~1744, and then again the same land to the US in ~1794 by the same tribe(s), by treaty in perpetuity again.

- Americans were interested in expanding into its 1783 British-ceded territory south of the Great Lakes, NOT conquer Canada as the administration's enemies suggested. As Britannica "War of 1812" points out, "Federalists accused [Jeffersonian Republican] war advocates of expansionism under the ruse of protecting American maritime rights. Expansionism, however, was not as much a motive as was the desire to defend American honour. The [US] attacked Canada because it was British, but no widespread aspiration existed to incorporate the region." [By 1812, Congressional majority in House and Senate among Federalist New England and Republican Atlantic Seaboard states were against absorbing an alien culture of Catholics and Anglicans in Canada. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(a) The "scalping knives," made in Sheffield were cheap butcher knives used mostly for skinning pelts. These were necessary considering that the fur trade was the main economic pursuit in the northwest. (b) The Treaty of Paris 1783 was signed before the U.S. Constitution came into effect in 1789. At that time the territories that the states had ceded to collective ownership became the property of the federal government. Prior to that, the Continental Congress was a "congress of ambassadors" of independent sovereign states that were collectively referred to as the United States. (c) I never claimed that the U.S. desired to annex Canada. TFD (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that your claim that "one of our British reliable sources notes that the British supplied their Revolution allies and Canadian fur-trader proxies to war on US settlements of veteran land grants in EASTERN Ohio beyond the Fort Stanwix line, supplies including "scalping knives" is meant to refer to Julius W. Pratt's A History of United States Foreign Policy (1955) (it's the only source quoted in the article using the phrase "scalping knives"). Pratt is actually an American. His discussion of British efforts to supply the Indians, which can be found on pages 126 - 128, does not mention any raids beyond the Fort Stanwix line, or even any raids beyond the line set at Greenville. He discusses the Treaty of Fort Stanwix only once, on page 61. However, he does not make the claim that the Indians conducted any raids beyond the Fort Stanwix line on that page, either. We need to be careful not to make inaccurate claims about what scholars argue, especially on such a fraught topic as the United States' ethnic cleansing of the indigenous peoples of the Old Northwest!EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, it makes no sense to use a 1955 book on U.S. foreign policy as a source for the War of 1812, per Context matters and Age matters. TFD (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's get a source one way or the other less than 20 years old. EITHER CONFIRM (a) the same information published within the last 20 years, OR DENY, (b) find one that says, VIZ: "No British-manufactured Sheffield butcher knives were used by Native Americans for scalping US citizens 1796-1812.", for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Butcher knives were used to scalp people, although that was not their primary purpose. In 2018, 1500 Americans were killed by knives and scissors,[6] that does not mean that is the primary reason people own them. You probably own a number of knives yourself. Straight razors are colloquially known as cutthroat razors. That doesn't mean that is why people bought them. TFD (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree "Butcher knives were used to scalp people, although that was not their primary purpose." Yes again, English idiom for reference, "Flogging a dead horse" together. Cheers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

stipulations as of 28 July

Five (5) stipulations. The Four Deuces and EnoughApologetics2, to be clear going forward, the takeaway from the two replies to my 12:16 Jul 28 post is that all three of us stipulate to five items:

(1) A reliable 1955 source uses the term “scalping knives” for Sheffield-made butcher knives that were PRIMARILY USED in fur trade from within US territory to Canadian fur traders.

(2) The British-subject fur traders paid no US duties on their commerce originating in British-ceded territory lawfully acknowledged by treaty to be sovereign to the US by His Most British Majesty and his “loyal British subjects”.

(3) The same reliable source reports British military alliances with Indian warriors were cemented by British guns, ammunition, knives and pots. THESE SAME INDIAN PROXIES raided US settlements from the 1776-1783 American Revolutionary War, through the 1785-1795 Northwest Indian War, initiated Indian raids on US settlement 1796-1812, and continued them throughout the War of 1812 British campaigns 1813-1815.

- ALSO NOTE: Throughout this period 1775-1815, British muskets were maintained by British-subject gunsmiths living in Native American settlements on territory that would become 1783 US "sovereign and independent soil".

(4) Although there were raids made on US-citizen settlements prior to the War of 1812, there are reliable sources used here which omit them. British-supplied weapons and knives were used on Indian raids by warriors of the Shawnee, Creek, and Techumseh’s independent raiding bands of warriors 1796-1812 on US settlement territory that was British-ceded to the US as “sovereign and independent” by the laws of the British Empire.

(5) To date, Talk:War of 1812 has no evidence that US or British agents encouraged or endorsed scalping in settlements of men, women and children. However some Americans and Indians of all conditions were scalped during raids on their settlements 1796-1812. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As reliable sources show, the British did not have a military alliance with the Indians in the years before 1812, but bought furs from them and provided them with food and manufactured goods for their survival. TFD (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

True, as stipulated, British subjects bought furs from them and provided them with food and manufactured goods for their survival without paying US lawful duties for furs taken within the British-ceded "sovereign and independent" United States.

I am not sure the military alliances made during the American Revolutionary War between Britain and Indian military allies were ever formally renounced. Do we have online access to a reliable source that says the British-Shawnee military alliance and others ended prior to 1815? Please provide it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Article 6 of the Treaty of Greenville allowed the Indians to drive off or "punish as they saw fit" any US citizens who settled beyond the border which it drew through central Ohio. After 1795, Indian attacks on settlers beyond the Greenville line (including virtually all such attacks in the decade preceding the War of 1812) were thus permitted under U. S. law. EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, punitive tribal-led attacks were authorized against unlawful squatters WEST of the treaty line in Ohio (Country). AND, recall that British "Ohio Country" is nearly the same as US "Northwest Territory".

- We have at Treaty of Greenville, "Upon Ohio statehood in 1803, the western boundary of Ohio ran due north from a place on the Ohio River SOMEWHAT EAST of the south-southwesterly TREATY LINE," and therefore Ohio (state) was entirely OUT OF HARMS WAY from any lawful punitive raids occurring WEST of the Treaty Line. Correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The northwestern third of Ohio was west of the Greenville line; the U.S. of course ignored this when it admitted Ohio as a state. EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, the Jay Treaty granted British subjects (and Indians) free access to American territory by land and inland waters, exempted the fur trade from duties, and permitted Indians to move goods freely across the border between the U. S. and the Canadas. Thus, U. S. law allowed Indians to move British-supplied goods and weapons into American territory, and allowed fur traders from the Canadas to operate freely in U. S. territory without paying duties. Pretty much everything that angered the American public about the British-Indian relationship between 1795 and 1812 was legal according to treaties signed by the American government. EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In fact even today, Canadian Indians are still allowed free access into the U.S. TVH asked if the British formally renounced Indian alliances. The sources I have seen don't say they did, but then they don't say there were formal alliances to begin with. TFD (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

ANOTHER STIPULATION then, regardless of fraught and argumentative interpretations surrounding post-Civil War "Indian Wars" in the Far West across the Mississippi River in the 1870s-1880s => at the time of the War of 1812, there was no US policy of "genocide" directed at Native Americans. Rather,

- ENOUGHAPOLOGETICS2, 00:35, 29 July 2021: "Indians [by US treaty had] free access to American territory by land and inland waters, exempted the fur trade from duties, and permitted Indians to move goods freely across the border between the US and the Canadas.", and

- THE FOUR DEUCES,07:11, 29 July 2021: "even today, Canadian Indians are still allowed free access into the US."

AGREED, there was no 1812-1815 US policy akin to the UN Report's definition of genocide, "to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of [an] ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources in "America expands west" sub-section

Earlier today, I tried to shorten the "Origins" section of the article by deleting some duplicated information and condensing some text. User:Moxy undid my edit, saying that it had to be discussed on the Talk page first. I can understand why he did so, and why the changes that I made might be controversial. However, there is one change that I made which should be uncontroversial. In the "America expands west" subsection, there is a half-paragraph beginning "Secure control of the territory would provide land for American settlers" and ending "since the British traders and officials involved were based there." It cites A. J. Langguth, Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), page 263 (the book can be borrowed for free on archive.org at this link: https://archive.org/details/union181200ajla/page/262/mode/2up). If you follow that link, you will see that page 263 of Langguth's book does not support any of the claims made in this half-paragraph. Page 263 actually a narrative of the week leading up to the Battle of the Thames in 1813. Additionally, the information in the half-paragraph in question duplicates information provided in the "British support for Indian nations" sub-section. Does anyone object if I remove this half-paragraph, since it is based on a source which does not support its claims? EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The second-half paragraph beginning "Secure control of the territory", citing "Langguth" does not relate to any key term in the passage anywhere in the text or in the index. The contribution as written is a mish-mash of unrelated items, perhaps a copy-paste from the editors notes, rather than a single referenced source?

Thanks EnoughApologetics2. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

More on Jon Latimer book on 1812

I just now came across this statement by Donald R. Hickey:

"The late Jon Latimer’s award-winning 1812: War with America (2007) professed to present the British side of the story, but it does no such thing, and it is so riddled with factual errors and filled with so much deceptive, if not fraudulent research, that it should not be used." Donald R. Hickey "Remembering the Forgotten Conflict: Two Hundred Years of Literature on the War of 1812," in Donald R. Hickey and Connie D Clark, eds. The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 (Routlege, 2015), p. 272.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I read his book, and found it full of errors, wayward slaps at American and Americans, and offensive.Tirronan (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, well this isn't the Donald Hickey show and the Society for Military History obviously disagrees with his assessment. This isn't the place for a book review and certainly not such a one-sided one. I have therefore removed your edit from the article. --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Section very long

The Long-term consequences section is some five pages long, which is very lengthy for an article about the war and its causes, and raises due weight issues. This large section would be better served in an article about Results of the War of 1812. Everything in this section can be summarized with 1-2 pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Cut as much of it as you like as far as I am concerned.Tirronan (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

POV editing

@EnoughApologetics2: Concerning this edit history comment for this edit:

"Revert POV edits to Indigenous nations sub-section which misrepresent sources cited, delete any mention of Indian Removal and associated deaths; please take major changes to sourced material to Talk Page)"

This edit removed mention of the government assimilation program for Indians, that many attempts were made to bring Indians into the farming and ranching fold. Instead it goes into great detail about the "journey of death". Then it employs a lot of POV weasel terms, like "encroachment" and "subjugation", etc. The previous version, which was reverted, uses the same sources you brought to the table. i.e.Edmunds, 1978, and Russell, 1978 and Prucha, 1994. The section goes on at length about things like the Creek war, but fails to mention that this war was largely fought between the various "Creek factions", who allied with both the British and the American sides. Then it went on about the Trail of Tears, which occurred in 1830. Given your accusatory user name, edit history and the obvious focus on Indians, it seems you are here to make a statement, always portraying the Indians as helpless victims, rather than as largely hostile, racist, xenophobic and unwilling to adopt to inevitable change, while you attempt to portray the settlers, a term you deleted and replaced with "encroaching", in the worst possible light. This sort of affair is nothing new to Wikipedia. We are supposed to assume good faith, but it's a little difficult to turn a blind eye on the narrow and one sided editing we've just witnessed, once again. Please use more neutral and encyclopedic terms, balanced coverage and try not to give undue weight to a topic. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm sure that I've followed WP:NPOV. I've focused on American policy toward the Indians in the early 18th century, because that's a topic that I know about, and it seems to me that a lot of Wikipedia articles on the subject are biased against the Indians. On that subject, I notice that you describe Indians as "largely hostile, racist, xenophobic and unwilling to adapt to inevitable change" in your comment above.

Your new version of the text that I added to the "Indigenous nations" sub-section seems designed to conceal the reality that the U.S. took advantage of its victory over the Indians' during the War of 1812 to forcibly displace them and take their land, a process in which thousands of Indians died . These facts are troubling, but they are more or less universally accepted by historians, and the article shouldn't conceal them. Historians generally describe the United States' forced displacement of the Indians as an important consequence of the War of 1812, so the article should give it a lot of weight: see, for example, Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (University of Illinois Press: Urbana, 1989), pg. 303 - 304.

You did not add any new sources to support your text: instead, you just left the sources that I cited in place. Those sources support the original version of the text, and do not support your new version. In fact, your new version misrepresents their content. If you want to write a new text, you will have to find new sources.

The terms that I used are not POV and are often used by the leading historians of the War of 1812. For instance, Donald R. Hickey describes the American government's treatment of the Indians as "subjugation" in The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (University of Illinois Press: Urbana, 1989), pg. 304. Similarly, Reginald Horsman describes Euro-Americans' occupation of Indians' lands as "encroachment" in his Expansion and American Indian Policy, 1783 - 1812 (Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1967), on pages 10, 59, 81, and 140.

The Indians of the Old Northwest and American South were already farmers in 1812. They had been farmers for about four thousand years, since their ancestors domesticated the crops of the Eastern Agricultural Complex around 1800 B.C. Your claims that the American government wanted to convince the Indians of the Old Northwest and South to take up farming, made both here and in the article, are therefore wrong.

I would welcome the input of other editors here!EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

EnoughApologetics2's version reads more neutral in the sense that is how modern experts would describe it. I found the other version biased: "Many efforts were made by the government and its assimilation program, to bring farming into the Indian way of life. After much confrontation between settlers and tribes, those who were not willing to adapt to a life of farming or ranching were ultimately sent to various reservations." It sounds like the Americans were doing them a favor. TFD (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

EnoughApologetics2 The sources you provided supported my statements. For example, Edmunds covers the government Indian assimilation program (p.162), which you deleted. Again, you deleted important context, regarding gov assimilation programs, not to mention the efforts made. The displacement should be covered in context with the situation following the war of 1812. At that time, especially, relations with the Indians were tedious at best as they had organized major war efforts, with the aid of Britain, against the U.S.. Yes Indians harbored racial, xenophobic, feelings as did many whites, esp during and following a war. Indeed, Hickey, p.304, uses the term subjugation, but in context with neutralizing a serious threat to the U.S.. On pp.240-241, Edmunds maintains, "during the 1820's, while most government officials (emphasis added) continued to argue for the assimilation of the Indians into white society, a growing minority of Americans believed that the Indians should be removed to the west." This statement is in stark contrast to the obtuse and misleading statement you made on Aug. 7. i.e. "The American government took advantage of their growing weakness to compel them to cede most of their remaining lands, confining them to small reservations.", leading the reader to believe that most of US government made no attempts to help assimilate the Indians. There were also tangential (at best) topics you brought in that were inappropriate for this war article. Let's be reminded also, that it is very easy to promote a POV using neutral sources, simply by cherry picking the information while leaving important context out. The article is not biased against Indians, and I'm not seeing any statements that outright reflect badly on the Indians. If you feel there are, please bring them to our attention. There is nothing "concealed", when we give the readers the entire picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree! Historians of the War of 1812 generally agree that it brought an end to attempts to force the Indians to assimilate. In Expansion and American Indian Policy, 1783 - 1812, pages 170 - 171, Reginald Horsman says: "After the War of 1812 the obvious failure of the process of assimilation over most of the eastern half of the Mississippi Valley quickly brought a policy of Indian removal with a new goal not of union but of the separation of whites and Indians. After 1812, it was not until after the Civil War that the American government again based its policy so clearly on a doctrine of assimilation."

You claim, both here and in the article, that the U.S. government only displaced the Indians because they allied with Britain during the War of 1812 and refused to assimilate. This is untrue. Many tribes, such as the White River Delaware, remained neutral during the War of 1812, while others, like the Choctaw and Cherokee, fought for the U.S. The Choctaw and Cherokee also assimilated rapidly, adopting Euro-American culture and European-style agriculture. Nonetheless, the U.S. drove all of these tribes from their lands in the 1820s and 1830s. In fact, it treated the assimilated Choctaw and Cherokee in an especially cruel manner. As Carl Benn notes in "Aboriginal Peoples and their Multiple Wars of 1812" (The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 ed. Donald R. Hickey and Connie D. Clark, New York: Routledge, 2016, 147 - 148), the U.S. subjected all the Indians west of the Mississippi to Indian Removal, even if they assimilated and refused to support the British during the War of 1812. The article should reflect these facts.

Edmunds does not support your text. Firstly, his book is solely about the Potawatomis, not about the Indians of the Old Northwest as a whole. Lower down on page 240, he explains that President Andrew Jackson and the official actually in charge of the Potawatomis supported Indian removal, and explains how they first confined the Potawatomis to small reservations (page 242) then forced them to move west of the Mississippi (pages 244 to 272), a process in which so many died that historians call it the Potawatomi Trail of Death. Your version ignores all of this information.

WP:NPOV requires us to actually describe what happened to the Indians after the War of 1812, not to conceal the suffering inflicted by American policy, as your version does. EnoughApologetics2 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Leaving tangential topics, like the Trail of Tears, out of the article is not "concealing" anything in the manner you're suggesting. Now you're expounding on what occurred in the 1820's and 1830's, while we only have subjective connections with such events to the War of 1812. There are many other variables to consider, esp the actual events, conflicts, etc, during the time period in question.
• re:Edmunds, 1978. This is what the article says:   Many efforts were made by the government and its assimilation program, to bring farming into the Indian way of life. <Edmunds, 1978, p. 162>
  This is Edmunds' statement:  Meanwhile, the government pushed a program of assimilation. In responses to Five Metals' and Little Turtle's pleas for farm implements, federal officials initiated a program to foster white methods of agriculture among the tribes near fort Wanye. Hoes, plows and livestock were sent to the Patawatomis and Miamis. Wells was instructed to hire white farmers as teachers for the Indians and to employ blacksmiths and carpenters to further the assimilation process.
  This is quoted to demonstrate the scope of the attempts made by the government and religious groups towards Indian assimilation. While Edmunds' book focuses on the Patawatomis, it does cover other things involved in the time period in question, like the many assimilation attempts made by the federal government. However, I will edit the statement in question to read, 'Various efforts were made by the government, instead of saying, Many efforts.. Also, let's remember that after the war Indians in general were often held in ill regard for allying with the British and making war on the U.S. To assume this did not weigh heavily in Indian dealings in general would be naive.
  Our article currently says:  The indigenous nations lost most of their fur-trapping territory. Indigenous nations were displaced in Alabama, Georgia, New York and Oklahoma, losing most of what is now Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin within the Northwest Territory as well as in New York and the South. The article depicts the general and overall truth. Leaving out minute (cherry picked) details and tangential topics is not "concealing" anything. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You have to stay within the time period that the article covers. President Madison made it very clear that he was going to remove the Indian Nations when the war was over.Tirronan (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

And as you have shown, during the War of 1812, Madison was referring to the military allies and proxies for the British Empire who made war on US soil against US citizens in defiance to the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris, on and off, but mostly throughout 1783 to 1815, during the time period the article covers for the Second War of American Independence.

Throughout this time, from Washington to Madison, the US government sponsored attempts to assimilate Native Americans. An accurate account will distinguish between the early weak central government of the US and the states acting against the Indian policy enacted by law in Congress. The most egregious and provocative atrocities were instigated by Pennsylvania and Kentucky militias leading up to the War of 1812, not by the US.

Instead of "pacifying" tribes with raiding renegade youth who were independently armed with British muskets and violating mutually agreed-to US-tribal peace treaties, the state militias often acted without sanction of the US Congress to "protect" illegal squatters violating US treaties. But instead, the result was further "provoking" the tribes with resentment against all whites. The renegade state militias left the lawful frontier settlement more dangerous than before their wholesale crop burning of agricultural fields & orchards, punctuated by massacres of women and children, with warrior protection or defenseless.

Nostalgic neo-Confederate "states righters" SHOULD NOT get a "pass" on the STATE militia complicity with the Indian RENEGADE youth to bring about a failure in formally agreed-to Tribal-Congressional efforts at peace and agricultural assimilation by the elders in both cultures. And yes, that is a moral judgement of the historical narrative with wp:balance.

Sloppy categorization of "all whites" or the "U.S." or the "Americans" should not confound the US Congress with county militias sometimes acting without even STATE sanction. "Within the time period that the article covers",

(a) CONGRESS did not perfectly control states,

(b) STATE capitals in the east did not perfectly control their western county militias,

(c) TRIBAL chiefs did not perfectly control their renegade youth independently armed by "the British", and

(d) PARLIAMENT did not perfectly control British agents, trading post contractors, OR licensed fur traders.

In BOTH the Indian and the American cultures on their mutual frontier, there were (a) ambitious young men on that frontier who sought to advance themselves by provoking a "war of extermination" on the other, and (b) and there were also those on the frontier who anticipated that they could make a profit, regardless of the outcome. That sad tale should not be covered up by spasms of nationalistic jingoism by editor POV from partisans of either empire or republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, but the discussion is getting out of topic. We already have a spin-off article on the Results of the War of 1812. It covers the economic and political effects of the war until the 1840s. Covering the legacy of the war into two different articles leads to duplication of the text. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! We are not here to right the wrongs of the world. I do however agree there is no perfect control, stupid phrasing.Tirronan (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Please remember that the article is about the War of 1812 and not just the conflict in the NW Territory. As such it is an overview of the war and not an expansive review of every single aspect of that war. The article states clearly that all historians agree that the real losers of the war were the Indian Nations. That they lost everything.Tirronan (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

There are losers in every war. Our concern should be that we present such events in their proper context, and not go on about remotely related events to the war - esp those that occurred 10, 20, 50+ years later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

POV editing, continued

Without objection, I will remove all "stupid phrasing" that amateurishly, or polemically editor POV, conflates (a) historical actors among independent State and County militias 1805-1820 with (b) aggregate and generic terms that make no differentiation among the "US" governments or "American" citizens in their political and social variety during the period under consideration 1805-1820. I'll give it a couple days here for any comments, qualifications, or objections, before beginning the task throughout the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be any reasons for objection. I'll offer further comment in the event there is an issue involved with any given edit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Latest book on Tecumseh and the War of 1812

This work may be useful in improving the narrative involving war with the Indians.

• Hickey, Donal R. (2021). Tecumseh's War: The Epic Conflict for the Heart of America. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-1-6471-2006-1.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

Can you replace any use of the word Indian with Native American. It's 2021, we shouldn't have racial slurs in our educational articles. Noworld4tomoro (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That is likely a contentious change, so you get consensus for the edit before opening a request. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The British alliance with Spain and the British offensive failures within the United States.

"Britain did not support Spain to restore its prewar colonial boundaries in North America."

Really? There is no citation on any of this . . .

I intended to edit (and delete) this, but in case there is a source, I would like see it. Ironic Luck (talk)

A little trim there looks good to me. That's a funny wording, to my knowledge, carried forward uncritically from a previous editor. The Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris did not address anything of Spanish colonial boundaries pre-AWR in North America. Maybe one of our Euro-editors started to say something more abut the Euros worldwide in regards to strategic Choke points at Gibraltar by Royal Navy choke points, and the Spanish at New Orleans, but then he may have dropped it sometime during the back and forth last year.

- Britain did guarantee the US 'free navigation' of the Mississippi River to the "open ocean", the same terminology guaranteed to Britain in the 1763 Treaty of Paris at the French cession to Britain in North America east of the "middle of the Mississippi River".

- (a) Perhaps the editor meant to say the British did not support the US against Spain to enforce the commerce and trade provisions of its peace treaty with the US at New Orleans, where Spain asserted the right to collect revenues from US citizens, or blockade the Mississippi River from US commerce altogether in either direction, regardless of the Euro-flagged merchant attempting passage.

- (b) The British also permitted its subjects to trade furs taken from US territory, without Imperial interference. The US-tribal treaties provided for tribes on US soil who had ceded their lands to the USG to trade with it in exchange for annual stipends beyond initial payment for their territory. The British fur traders interfered with that agreement on British-acknowledge 'sovereign' US territory. So the British Empire gave "no support" to the US.

- (c) Additionally, the British subjects with a licensed royal trading post provisioned tribes making war on US citizens, without imperial interference in the Northwest Territory ceded by Britain to the US as "sovereign territory". So Britain gave "no support" to the US there.

- I'm not sure of the purpose of the fragment you'd like to delete. Looks like good editing to me. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete it, looks like useless Wessel wording in any case.

Thank you for the historical information and support to make an edit towards the main page, TheVirginiaHistorian. I have deleted the last line; I'm open to any further changes (which offer citation) to make further clarification on this article.

It's just my own speculation, but I think the editor that wrote that last line (full of weasel words) might have been trying to take a needless jab at the historian (and author) Ronald Drez. I brought him up often (along with Daughan and Alan Taylor) in last years heated discussions (between Wikipedia Archives 22-25), but Ronald Drez has made the claim that the British probably would not have returned Louisiana to the United States. The likelihood was that Spain would have gotten their "stolen land" back if the British were completely successful in their land campaign. I cited directly from the page of his book (in Archive 22) that fully contradicted the "Britain did not support Spain to restore . . ." line on the main page.

And just to add, there is a bit of a back-and-forth debate between Ronald Drez and Jason Wiese (Curator at the Historic New Orleans Collection) related to this topic (time-stamp between 13:01-22:25) on the YouTube video titled, "The Battle of New Orleans: A Closer Look | 2015": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScFS1WAMR9E Ironic Luck (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific cite. I presumed the same on my own account earlier, given the persistence of the British Imperial occupation of Gibraltar against several plebiscites and international court rulings to the contrary, as I recall. Likewise other strategic points of British interest in Alfred Mahan's 'choke points' at Singapore for the Indian Ocean, Bahamas for the Caribbean . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Impressment After the War

Ok, this has always kept resurfacing as an issue. Toll talked about it briefly but this author goes into the issue after the way in some depth ...

...so here it is.

President Madison was naturally concerned that a renewal of the old war in Europe might reignite the maritime issues that caused the War of 1812. The peace treaty was silent on them because the parties could not agree. Castlereagh was alive to the danger, and he moved quickly to prevent neutral trade and impressment from reemerging to disrupt his rapprochement with the United States. The British were careful not to interfere with American trade, and naval officers were given strict rules to prevent impressment from becoming a problem again. Instead of a callous disregard of American rights on the high seas, there came a sensitivity from London that avoided conflict. Madison, for his part, although unaware of London’s new attitude, was slow to take offense at British actions. Thus, tentatively, the two old enemies took the first, halting steps toward a new relationship. Daughan, George C. 1812 (p. 415). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

Augustus Hodges was press-ganged into the Royal Navy on 30 January 1815. You would have thought that at this time, with the restoration of the French monarchy and "Boney" in exile in Elba that the Royal Navy would have been decreasing its operations and would not be press-ganging. Hodges was a British citizen who served for the next three years. His service is documented, archive reference ADM 29/19/209, and can be viewed by anyone with access to the Ancestry subscription service.

Has any historian been able to analyse the decline of press-ganging and to provide hard facts from the records that the Admiralty would have kept, I wonder? Keith H99 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Gulf Coast

The penultimate paragraph has a misleading comment, which should be deleted.

'Considerable reinforcements from Britain continued to arrive for the Gulf forces even after the end of the war.'

The peace treaty was signed by the British on 24 December 1814. The expeditionary forces in the Gulf Coast became aware of peace on 13 February 1815, with the arrival of HMS Brazen. If there is any source-based evidence of 'considerable reinforcements' being shipped from Great Britain to North America from 24 December 1814 onwards, then the comment should remain, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated point of view. I'd have expected something definitive as to what constitutes 'considerable reinforcements' in terms of numbers of men, rather than a vague statement.

As an aside, I am wondering if the first prisoner exchanges took place in this theatre of war in March 1815.Keith H99 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of the Gulf Coast, I would question the following:

Because the Americans against all odds[1] defeated a British naval invasion force[2] at the First Battle of Fort Bowyer in September 1814 a new British expeditionary force of 8,000 under General Edward Pakenham attacked Jackson's prepared defences in New Orleans on 8 January 1815

1. A very loaded statement.

2. Really? Where are the invasion plans? It's another case where the word "invasion" is used rather than attack. Is there evidence that the British felt comfortable in assuming that a force of sixty marines, sixty Native American allies on the battlefield, a further sixty or seventy Native American allies twenty seven miles away and four small ships, none of which were ships-of-the-line, would result in the successful conquest of North America that day?

3. I don't see the outcome of Fort Bowyer being the reason to attack New Orleans. Surely, you come back with a better plan and more troops, to take your original objective? It makes more sense to quote from a RS as to what the British motivations were for attacking New Orleans.

In summary, the statement starts with loaded nationalistic hyperbole and fails to provide a plausible rationale as to why this happened? Keith H99 (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is published by an unidentified author but sounds more plausible than the statement above, and a variation on this would be a better introduction.

'The British goal was to gain command of the entrance to the Mississippi River and to challenge the legality of the Louisiana Purchase.'

Using this directly would be plagiarism. Keith H99 (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A very interesting commentary from Gene Allen Smith with regard to the British involvement on the Gulf Coast. The primary sources that he consulted are available on microfilm at The Historic New Orleans Collection

Concurrently, Smith observes that in August 1814, Vice Admiral Cochrane had convinced the Admiralty that a campaign against New Orleans would weaken American resolve against Canada, and hasten a successful end to the war.

This is in a journal article about the US Navy and the Mississippi, accessible online, published in 2008 in the journal of the The Canadian Nautical Research Society - Northern Mariner Keith H99 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Aboriginal

The Aboriginals Or Indians How We Use To Call Them You Know The Natives Were On The Canadian/British/French Canadians Side The Americans Were Basically Killing Them All Like Cowboys & Indians & Us In Canada Didn’t Even Have Cowboys 2001:1970:54DB:4600:B047:8D3F:675D:9198 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

The Indians Were On The Canadian/British/French Canadian Side 2001:1970:54DB:4600:B047:8D3F:675D:9198 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to explain what changes you would like to see. Note that which side(s) the Indians fought on is already in the article. TFD (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

Opening paragraph states "... fought by the United States of America and its indigenous allies against Great Britain and its allies in British North America .."

This misrepresents the allied groups in the conflict, particularly indigenous alliances. Specifically, the majority of indigenous allies fought alongside Great Britain, against the American forces. F

For reference, see "list of combatants" which describes a 15,000:125 ratio of British allied vs. American allied indigenous combatants. 2001:569:5402:8200:645F:944D:8DBF:FDBB (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also the text reflects the infobox correctly. Maybe there's some scope for improvement, but it's fine as is too Hemantha (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hornet vs. Peacock

Should be in ‘single ship action’ section, as one of the most notable. 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:6164:96C7:764C:41AC (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilioluna.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Styer74.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Unintended Marginalisation of First Nations

I was quite surprised to reread this article since I last glanced at it about a year ago, as a great deal of content has been removed or minimised.

While I understand the need for concision, edits in the past year have attempted to pare down content to such a degree that the perspective of native populations is not nearly as well represented as it was before, and presented seemingly from a colonial perspective.

I'm not much a of a wikipedian and I'm not sure how best to address this, but I feel it's necessary to raise that brevity has seemed to be gained at the expense of less significant content and - due to colonial bias in available sources - erasure of the indigenous perspective.

As a potential improvement, I believe the summary-by-viewpoint dispensed with in this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_1812&diff=1014019219&oldid=1014012589) was a useful tool for attaining an appropriately neutral POV and may be useful if reintroduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3840:4130:B099:9C85:64F4:4036 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

An other title, please

1812 and war is immediately associated with Napoleon's Grande Armée invading Russia. 600 000 French and allied went for Moscow (but the Tsar lived in Saint Petersburg). The march back became a horrible disaster for Napoleon, and in 1813-14 all was over. But the new French King (whatever Louis) thought the time was set back to early 1789. Napoleon could come back ! But only for 100 days. But this war in USA have I never even heard about. "Amarican 1812 War" or something similar would be a better name. 83.250.71.64 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

We use the title that is normally used in reliable sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. While some writers refer to the French invasion of Russia as the War of 1812, it is not the common name. We even have a hatnote that directs readers to a disambiguation page listing other uses of the expression. TFD (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Style

The writing style is kind of weird, making it hard for someone not steeped in 19th century naval warfare to understand. "... naval ships do not fight as individuals by the code of the duel, they are national instruments of war, and are used as such." I would have no idea what this means, although the sentence following this sort of explains it (at least I'm guessing it does). "Java had fought hard and had the butcher's bill to show for it." What the heck is a "butcher's bill"? "Despite her unlucky reputation Captain James Lawrence took the command of the USS Chesapeake...": He had a choice? I would have thought some naval officer above him assigned him this command. "Lawrence held the weather gauge but refused to use it": I picture him holding a barometer or something, and ignoring the fact that a storm was coming. "Of interest, Chesapeake was holding her own with the great guns": ok, but why is this sentence more interesting than the other sentences? And so forth. Mcswell (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, down in the section "Southern Theatre" (British spelling), it says "Because of the region's polyglot population, both the British and the Americans perceived the war in the Gulf South as a fundamentally different conflict from the one occurring in the Lowcountry and Chesapeake." I assume it's referring to the Gulf South (although that's unclear), but what was polyglot about that area? The only non-English speaking area down there that I can think of would have been the French speaking area around New Orleans. There were of course Indian tribes there, but those existed in the midwest as well.Mcswell (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I wrote that as there are many books that describe naval battles between two ships as a duel. That has propagated through the web as such. The weather gauge is holding a position such that one might take his ship downwind and can be a rather large advantage. Look, there are a lot of archaic terms used to describe the age of sail naval affairs. I'm not going to dumb down the article to cater to your tastes.Tirronan (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Casualties

So the page says 2,200 Americans were killed in action and 2,700 British died of disease and action. If you just count the killed in action in every battle listed on Wikipedia it comes to over 2,600 Americans killed and over 2000 British. Thousands more died of disease so the British combined death toll of 2,700 is too low. There are dozens of skirmishes and privateer actions not listed so the number is higher. The problem is I don't have a source to cite just obvious information. I'm not sure if I should change it without being able to cite a source Bernner (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Bit late to this for sure but it's best to cite a source listing total casualties if possible. BogLogs (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hartford Convention

I purchased a new book, just to have an additional source. So for your consideration:

15. Twenty-six idiots attended. They had been chosen by the legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island; by the New Hampshire counties of Grafton and Cheshire; and by the county of Windham in Vermont. George Cabot of Massachusetts was chosen president and Theodore Dwight of Connecticut secretary. Leaders like Otis and Cabot excluded Federalist firebrands from the meeting. Otis and Cabot did not want to secede from the Union, nor did any other delegate. They wanted to express grievances and threaten future, more radical conventions, but they also wanted to preserve the Union. The convention lasted three weeks, from December 15 to January 5. As befitted a group who fancied that because of their wealth, education, and virtue, they were wiser than other citizens, their meetings were held in secret. On January 6 the convention issued a report for the public. It announced that

Daughan, George C. 1812 (pp. 368-369). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

the delegates were commissioned to devise means for defense against “dangers” and to obtain relief from “oppressions proceeding from acts of their own government, without violating constitutional principles or disappointing the hopes of a suffering and injured people.” Theodore Dwight wrote many years later that “the expectation of those who apprehended the report would contain sentiments of a seditious, if not a treasonable character, were entirely disappointed.... Equally free was it from advancing doctrines which had a tendency to destroy the union of the states. On the contrary, it breathed an ardent attachment to the integrity of the republic. Its temper was mild, its tone moderate, and its sentiments were liberal and patriotic.” Looking at the report, it was hard to disagree with Dwight.

Daughan, George C. 1812 (p. 369). Basic Books. Kindle Edition. [-- Tirronan] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

As of 11-17-2022 many/most of the dates of things leading up to the War of 1812 are stated as being in the 1930s. Somebody please correct the dates. 172.76.158.250 (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Already done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_1812&type=revision&diff=1122490378&oldid=1122478334 Cannolis (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The American killed in action

the American gave head in action is listed at 2,200 which is completely false. The source is Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures which is known to be a terrible book filled with inaccuracies. If you tally American killed on all the pages on Wikipedia as well as other engagements not on Wikipedia the number comes to around 3,300. Bernner (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, if you are going to make a change on the page, be sure to actually update/remove the prior source you are replacing, because your prior edit changed the content without changing the citation (which would lead to confusion for the reader if they needed to track down the figures).

In saying that, if you have a contention with the cited content, please provide an actual reliable source for said figures (keep in mind, Wikipedia is a reflection of what is published on reliable sources). We do not use other Wikipedia articles as a source/citation, as that would be inappropriate self-referencing (per WP:CIRCULAR). Additionally, we do not surmise our own conclusions by combining figures from multiple soures as that would be considered original research and something not verified by secondary sources (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for details on that). Generally speaking (not just for this article) you should not be combining/synthesizing the figures from different sources (given how there differing standards of what is counted, etc.), let alone from Wikipedia (as that's self-referential). Leventio (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Leventio So you would rather false information? From a reputabley terrible source for everyone to see and believe. 198.2.84.25 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not know how you've managed to misconstrue a statement that is informing someone to update/remove the source as meaning to use unrepetuable ones, but allow me to reiterate, because you've clearly misunderstood what I said.

If you clearly read my first sentence (Firstly, if you are going to make a change on the page, be sure to actually update/remove the prior source you are replacing.), it's clear that I would rather there be any source to begin with than none at all, as the aforementioned editor provided zero citations, and did not replace the prior "unreputable" source for his new figures (thus leaving readers unable to trace the source for the figure provided... which would make them unable to even discern the credibility of a source to begin with). If you notice I also specifically said "update/remove", so at no point did I say they can't remove the old cited figure, only that they need to update/remove the old citation if they are updating the figure.

And if you clearly read my second paragraph, I am explaining what qualifies as a reputable source. And while we're on the topic of reputable sources, if what you're major contention with my last statement is that you agree with the way the last editor retrieved their figures, then I'd really love to hear your defence of original research and why you'd think an anonymous editor's own opinion is considered reliable sourcing. Leventio (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Bathurst's correspondence

This has been subject to interpretation as to what the British intended to do as Pakenham's choices died with him, but in the main Wikipedia article, it is presented as an absolute fact that, "This is contradicted by the content of Bathurst's correspondence, and disputed by Latimer, with specific reference to correspondence from the Prime Minister to the Foreign Secretary dated 23 December 1814."

This is not true and Ronald Drez has this debate before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScFS1WAMR9E

Would it be acceptable to weigh Ronald Drez as a counter to John (now Tanya) Grodzinski? It is not contradicted in Bathurst's correspondence as the New Orleans seizure was going to be handled in a separate treaty and (arguably) was a "opportunity" for the British to take control and to give back to the Spanish. Ironic Luck (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Rockets Red Glare

It is a common misconception that the British bombardment illuminated the flag flying over Ft. McHenry. What Key was actually referring to was the fact that the bombardment continued "gave proof" that the flag was still there because if the Fort fell the bombardment would stop. It was the continuation of the bombardment, not a visible flag, that reassured him the flag was still there. It was only at daylight, when the bombardment stopped that he was unsure if the fort had finally fallen. Then the large garrison flag, the star spangled banner, was raised, proving the fort had survived. The smaller storm flag flown during the night battle would not have been visible to the fleet, rockets or not. 2600:4040:A538:B100:9038:D83F:E427:1D85 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Change the results part

Instead of “inconclusive” why not “Britain successfully defends its Northern American colony” and “treaty of Ghent” or maybe “ status quo ante bellum “ John67373 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum and Treaty of Ghent used to be part of are in the Results line, and I think they should be still remain there, since there were no significant territorial, material, military or political gains for any side (although the Indian tribes were clear losers)."Inconclusive" by itself (though I think it is still accurate and should also appear) might suggest that some other conclusion had been reached later, whereas the status quo has lasted for over two centuries.

But the War over the Infobox has already lasted three or four times as long as the War of 1812 itself. Cogent arguments have been made that the Canadians won (by averting American invasion), that the Americans won (by preventing a reassertion of British dominance), that both sides won, and that nobody won. {A minority view was argued by one editor for over a decade that Britain was the victor.) See above on this page and in these Archives: #/Archive 8, #/Archive 9, #/Archive 14, #/Who Won? and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812 —— Shakescene (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see MOS:MIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)