Talk:Treaty of Ghent/Archive 1

Ghent
There are a couple of cities called Ghent. Is this the Belgian one ? Lvr 08:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * For an international treaty, it is undoubtedly the one in Belgium rather than any of the U.S. places. older ≠ wiser 11:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It says in the main article that Ghent is now a part of Belgium. What was it a part of in 1814? That should be mentioned in the main article as well.Debresser (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Treaty
There are certainly a large number of examples of encyclopedic articles that include original text, and even complete texts, and I'm sure readers would find the actual text of the treaty very useful. I understand though if this is your article. --Atticus 02:10, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it is not my article. It is Wikipedia convention that articles do not contain the entire original text of source documents. That is precisely what Wikisource it for. If you want to add the text there and put a link to it here, that would be just fine. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I took the text of the Treaty and added it to WikiSource as Treaty of Ghent. Lvr 10:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree the full text isn't needed, but it would be nice to have a description of the contents. It seems odd to have so much detail about the negotiations, and then almost none about the outcome.2001:470:1F04:3DF:0:0:0:2 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

................................ The negotiators of this treaty included Jonathan Russell and not John Holmes as listed.

In the revision of 22:45, 10 January 2007, user Rjensen added the statement "The U.S. never wanted to annex Canada, only to seize parts for bargaining over other issues." and deleted text from previous revisions that conveyed the opposite view. Rjensen's assertion regarding U.S. intentions towards Canada certainly appear to be at odds with statements made by U.S. "war hawks" preceding the war. In order for Rjensen's change to stand, Rjensen must provide specific references to support his/her assertion about U.S. intentions towards Canada.

R. A. Hicks 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Britain had not made any significant gains, except for the burning of Washington D.C.
wtf? Burning down the WHITEHOUSE is insignificant? Sure, according to U.S. textbooks perhaps... which don't even mention the war surprisingly ;)

-G

How is burning something gaining something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.182 (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Annex, no; conquer, yes.
There is something weird going on here. Rjensen's statement in the section above appears unattributed, but he did sign it. And some minor vandal has a comment that doesn't show on the page. Can anyone clear this up?
 * To the main point. It is noteworthy that Rjensen's last cite (Burke, 1940, I believe) was at the heighth of the lend-lease program, when the UK was desperately trying to enlist US involvement in the war against Nazi Germany. Wouldn't do to accuse the US of territorial aggression then, would it? However, the official history of the US Army states that the conquest of Canada and Florida were definite goals of a Congress dominated by war hawks. I have added the appropriate ref to the article. A fuller (brush?) more complete discussion can be seen on Talk:War of 1812 Now, I hope this shows up. - Esseh
 * There was an unclosed markup. — An as  talk? 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, Anas. Missed that. Thanks. Esseh 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "war hawks" did not dominate congress. There were only twelve (12)of them for Christ sake. You people have to resort to lies to make your points. No permanent conquest of Canada intended. The British burned Washington, NOT the Canadians as taught in their schools. They deliberately lie to their own kids. And where in the hell did a British army roaming around the interior of the US come from? The Canadians seem to think it was the same army that burned the Capitol. That army was repulsed at Baltimore. They went back to their ships and set sail for Bermuda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.242.69 (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sites
What were the sites of the negotiation and signing? Have they been preserved as historical landmarks? Dynzmoar 11:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am currently in Ghent, at a hotel on VeldStraat. So far, no one here has heard ´of our own history`. Perhaps a bit of research between beers is in order? We found it, the plaque designating the site. It is on a post on an Esprit retail store on the east side of VeldStraat, about three blocks south of the McDonalds near Kleine Turkije. Jeb hhoh (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Jeb hhoh (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

very poorly written page
This page needs an unbais approach, as when reading it, it leaves the reader with nothing, but POV.

Agreed, maybe neither a Brit or a Yank - Danny41294 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny41294 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is very short but I don't see the bias. It's easy for people to make that claim but it would be more constructive and responsible if they actually gave an example of what they are alleging. Dwalrus (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Signed in the Netherlands?
The War of 1812 was between America and Britain, why was it signed in Netherlands? Was it so it would be on "neutral ground" where one side wouldn't have an advantage over the other? 67.54.192.38 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In all wars the treaties are signed in neutral countries -KOBE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.216.217 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

On the neutrality of historical articles
After reading several pages related to the War of 1812, I began to question the neutrality. Then I realized several things:

1. Neutrality on Wikipedia is theoretical 2. Neutrality in historical accounts is nonexistent

Seriously. There is no such thing as an unbiased historical accounts. Every American editing this page will cite American historians, who will favor painting America in a more noble light. Every Briton editing this page will cite British historians, who will paint Britain in a more noble light.

Ultimately, none of us were THERE, so there's no way to know for sure what happened. Any source that might be cited will have SOME bias. Instead, I propose that edits to the articles relating to the War of 1812 focus less on who attacked who and who "won", and more on the solid details of what happened; in this case, the actual text of the document might be good to include. Any objections? 205.133.161.55 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

92.7.xxx is banned HarveyCarter
Incorrigibly fractious User:HarveyCarter got banned, but he socks using 92.7.x.x IPs. Please delete his additions on sight, per WP:DENY. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

very one sided article for US as both sides claimed extra land in treaty
I REQEUST THAT THIS ARTICLE BE REWORDED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CLAIMS MADE BY BOTH SIDES i.e

At last in August 1814, peace discussions began in the neutral city of Ghent. Both sides began negotiations with demands. The U.S. wanted an end to all British time practices it deemed objectionable and also demanded cessions of Canadian territory and guaranteed fishing rights off Newfoundland. Britain sought a neutral Indian buffer state in the American Northwest, and wanted to keep parts of Maine that had been captured to provide a land corridor to Quebec from the maritime colonies. After months of negotiations, against the background of changing military victories, defeats and losses, the parties finally realized that their nations wanted peace and there was no real reason to continue the war. Now each side was tired of the war. Export trade was all but paralyzed and after Napoleon fell in 1812 France was no longer an enemy of Britain, so the Royal Navy no longer needed to stop American shipments to France, and it no longer needed more seamen. The British were preoccupied in rebuilding Europe after the apparent final defeat of Napoleon. The negotiators agreed to return to the status quo ante bellum in the Treaty of Ghent signed on December 24, 1814.

The British—but not the Americans—knew when they signed that a battle was imminent at New Orleans (it was fought on January 8, 1815). This treaty did not go into effect until it was formally ratified by both sides in February 1815.

The Treaty of Ghent failed to secure official British acknowledgment of American maritime rights, but in the century of peace among the naval powers from 1815 until World War I these rights were not seriously violated. The course of the war made irrelevant all of the issues over which the United States had fought, especially since the First Nations had been defeated and the Americans scored enough victories (especially at New Orleans) to satisfy honor and the sense of becoming fully independent from Britain. Imperialredcoat (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * nope. "with realistic demands" is false (Indian buffer state????, neutralize Great Lakes??, use of Mississippi?) The US delegation at Ghent did NOT make any claims re Canadian lands. Rjensen (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

as I have stated with sources the US did make these claims this is why this should be stated in article Imperialredcoat (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will challenge their reliability. Can you provide the exact quote and footnote? Rjensen (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * He cannot provide any footnotes from the Carl Benn book. That book is less than 100 pages long and if you take into account the many illustrations it probably has no more than 50 pages of text. There is no documentation other than a brief bibliography. The Lambert book has documentation but it is up to him to give the quote and where Lambert got it from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.206.7.56 (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lambert has a chapter on Ghent and all the footnotes are from the British side and none deal with the US position.Rjensen (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lambert states early in his book that he is giving the British view of the war. More than one reviewer has pointed out that his book is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.206.8.138 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

what do you mean I cant provide any footnotes from the carl benn book ? please read the book before you say this the book has no illustrations what so ever while there is documentation backed with primary sources. While along the lines of the Andrew lambert book just because one reviewer ( could you please stat who? ) states this view is bias does not make it so. he shows clear evidence that the US made these claims and for you to dismiss this as bias is ridicules. While also proves the US made these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperialredcoat (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to calm down. You stated that your source was The War of 1812 by Carl Benn. I have that book and it was published by Osprey as part of their Essential Histories series. There are many illustrations and maps in it. The overall length is less than 100 pages and I would guess that these take up 40 or more pages. That would leave about 50 pages of text to cover the whole War of 1812. There are no footnotes or endnotes in the book. If you have another book by Carl Benn with the same title that has footnotes then you should have no problem giving them. Also tell us who the publisher is. If you cannot do this then I have to assume you are not telling the truth.


 * I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of your reading comprehension. I did not say that "one reviewer" found Lambert's book to be biased. I actually said, "More than one reviewer has pointed out that his book is biased." I know of three reviewers who believe his book is biased and I would not be surprised if there are others.


 * The first is Piers Brendon who wrote a review in The Independent. You can still find it on the Internet at The Independent. Brendon compliments Lambert on some of his book but he also states: "Lambert is tendentious about the causes of the war...." He also calls the book "seriously flawed." By the way, if you don't know tendentious means biased.


 * The second is the naval historian Kevin D. McCranie in The Journal of Military History. McCranie compliments Lambert on several parts of his book. He also states: "Lambert’s greatest weakness, however, is his failure to address the Americans in the same balanced manner as he does the British." That is a polite way of saying Lambert is biased.


 * The third is from another writer on naval history Frederick C. Leiner in Naval History published by the U.S. Naval Institute. In the February 2014 edition of the magazine Leiner wrote: "Lambert's elegant, arch prose is an easy read, and he writes with utter confidence, even when his writing demonstrates bias and contempt." Leiner writes much more both critical and complimentary.


 * You also claim that John Stagg supports what you are saying and you gave the page number 141 in his book The War of 1812: Conflict For A Continent. I have the Kindle version of the book and have read it. Page 141 is in the early part of the chapter titled Peace. I don't see any comments there about the U.S. demanding annexation of Canada. Please give a quote that you are referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.9.18 (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

sorry but if you guessing how many illustrations there are then clearly you do not have the book which it does sound like .While you cannot interprete reviews as bias when they have have not said so. As anybody can interpret anything as the way they want. Plus even if they did mean this does not make it so as the book was very well received. While here is the quote from Osprey publishing's Carl Benn book pg81,82 treaty of Ghent chapter --1 "The American diplomats made forlorn attempts to win upper Canada though diplomacy while their army was failing to do so militarily " ---2 "the Madison administration essentially wanted to alter the status quo by annexing Canada and reversing British maritime polices" 3 "American diplomats dropped their demands for a resolution of Anglo-American maritime problems and restitution for damages done by raids and the royal navy's blockade, and for cession of Canada". If you deny this fact then you can argue with the Carl Benn himself.Imperialredcoat (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone who obtains a copy of this book can see that I am correct in pointing out the book has fewer than 100 pages with many illustrations and maps. They will also see that there are no footnotes/endnotes, or in other words no documentation.


 * You stated: "the book has no illustrations what so ever while there is documentation backed with primary sources."


 * I have no idea why you are giving quotes from the book, since that was not challenged in the first place.


 * As I stated before there is more than one reviewer who find Lambert to be biased. I gave the reviewers names and what they said. Everyone can, and undoubtedly will, make up their own mind on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.137.49 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Statute
Should the text be cited in the American statute format? TimeEngineer (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle of New Orleans
Is it relevant to mention the Battle of New Orleans In the introduction of this article? No reference is provided and it isn't  mentioned in the body of the article. The battle, no matter who had won it, was superfluous to the treaty. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Correction: the battle is in fact mentioned briefly in the text. But I still question why it is in the introduction since it was irrelevant to the treaty. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Historians who cover the Treaty usually mention New Orleans. The British knew about the invasion force but the Americans did not. Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the view of historians. Still, British negotiators might have known about an impending battle, but apparently they agreed to the treaty regardless of the outcome. So I think the battle has received more than adequate weight by mentioning it in the body of the article. It is only a footnote to the treaty of Ghent. Therefore, it doesn't warrant another sentence in the introduction. But that's just my opinion. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)