Talk:War of 1812/Archive 13

Correct references to British warships
Please change (although the action was fought on the British side mainly by the HMS Endymion) to (although the action was fought on the British side mainly by HMS Endymion) TobyR (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligent  sium  00:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Impossibility of consensus because Wikipedia is not solely American
Almost all Canadian scholars point out that it was an attempt to make Canada part of the rebel nation and that Canada didn't want to escape Britain. Almost all Americans have not been informed of the Canadian angle. We were all taught only about impressment and General Jackson's post-peace victory in New Orleans. There consensus is impossible unless we make it a solely American-POV article; while this is logically possible I believe Americans should be more polite to the Canadian view 200 years later. We are not in any way threatened by it. The big canal built to protect Canada from USA is not a long skating rink. LaidOff (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific about the problem you see in the article. How do you know that the US wanted to annex Canada? Do you have references?  It seems the US invaded Canada because it was nearby and they had military resources that could easily go there. (The ocean-going ships of the British Navy could not get into the Great Lakes, and the British had only a small regular army in Canada). For the US, taking over all or part of Canada could be a way to make Britain give way on the the trade and impressment issues. You need to show that Canada was more than a bargaining chip. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not by way of attacking either point of view, but just for clarification, it should be remembered that people's perception of historical events, as well as the actual events, can be important. They just need to be distinguished. Even if Britain never had either the intention or the ability to re-annex the U.S., and even if the U.S. could never hope or desire to annex Canada, the fact that so many Americans and Canadians have long believed one and/or the other to be the participants' "real" intentions is significant in itself.
 * By way of parallel, there may never have been such things as the "Slave Power" or a substantial threat of Abolitionist-instigated "Servile Insurrection" in ante-bellum America, but fears of such conspiracies certainly motivated hundreds of thousands of contemporary Americans. (Similarly, while I may personally have nothing but contempt for theories of Zionist participation in the 9/11 attacks, the fact that millions of Asians, Africans and Muslims sincerely believe such pernicious theories cannot be ignored.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree Shakescene, though I think that is the approach the article tries (perhaps unsuccessfully) to take. It points out who and when they took these views. If you mean the more wider social belief, it is more problematic to show, especially within the context of a historical article. I'm sure suggestions will be more than welcome though. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * very few Canadian historians of the war believe that "Almost all Canadian scholars point out that it was an attempt to make Canada part of the rebel nation". It's a famous postwar myth spread in Canada by British imperialists. Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Make no bones about it, there were factions within Congress that would have annexed Canada, and had the operations against the Candian colonies been successful then it would have at best been a barganing chip in ending the conflict and it is possible the colony would have been annexed. The problem is that we are now fully into "what if".  The stone cold evaluation would bring one to the conclusion that America in general and American's in particular were not all that interested in the campaign until it became a threat to the US.  Then and only then did funds, organization, and really capable officers, start appearing and a stalemate took place.  I've read the campaigns 4 times now and it is more than painful every time.  This isn't and never was a black and white issue type of war, it doesn't lend itself to any conclusion very well except this one... despite the fact that very few lives were lost, no territory was lost, all three Nations (one in the future of course) were very well changed forever both to each other and to how conflicts were settled between them. There is a section on each country and its changes if anyone wants to expand that section I think you will find it matters far more than anything about the war. Tirronan (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are few if any "black and white" issues concerning the War of 1812 and so we need to be very careful about things like Rjensen's comment that annexation of Canadian territory was a "postwar myth spread in Canada by British imperialists". There were AMERICAN politicians who believed that prior to the war the goal was to gain Canadian territory (John Randolph of Roanoke believed that the quest for land was the reason for the war, saying "Agrarian cupidity not maritime rights urges the war" (from Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789-1861 ISBN 0-8262-1567-X4 p 66-67 )). Significant military construction, such as the fortresses at Halifax, Quebec City and Kingston and the Rideau Canal were concrete (pardon the pun) responses to what was obviously preceived as a very real threat of future American invasion. Without getting too far off topic, there were American plans for the invasion and occupation of Canada until the late 1930's "The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON (code for Canada)and RED to become states and territories of the BLUE union (USA) upon the declaration of peace" Raiding the Icebox . Silverchemist (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those color codes for war plans you are referring to existed for every nation on earth INCLUDING internal military activity in the US itself. It was not a Canada specific thing. I have a book somewhere that lists them all.Jersey John (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go to far with that, in fact there are general war plans against every country on earth though most are just general studies on how it would be done should it have to be. While we have a warhawk section that would have been in support please understand that its a long leap, without the maritime trade issues there is no way I would believe that the US would have gone to war with Britain.  Going to that extreme is going to leave the vast majority of historians supporting the maritime issues, and you have only to read the minutes of Congress to understand the pure fury at those issues to be looking the fool.  As for anything else, look folks if someone were to seriously propose invading Canada there would be an open revolt in the US, there is no take over Canada cabal here. Tirronan (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * John Radolph of Roanoke was an outsider who was not a policymaker. Canadians want to believe that the US coveted their territory, but the US policymakers at the time wanted to stop the Indian attacks on Ohio they thought were based in Canada. (were they based in Canada??--that is more subtle. British policy in London was to encourage the Indians but avoid the Indians starting a war. British agents in Canada promised much more, and told the Indians, correctly, that if war broke out thern Britain and the Indians would be close allies. That encouraged the Indians and was used by Tecumseh to convince tribes to join his Indian coalition. US strategy was to seize parts of western Canada as bargaining chips. The Americans were not intererested in the parts of Canada where Canadians lived (Quebec, Maritimes).   Americans who wanted land in Canada could and did move there before 1812--most of the settlers in western Ontario were Americans by 1812.Rjensen (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have the fact that anyone wanting to move into Canada would be welcome and then you have the fact that America had just doubled its size. Even the Warhawks wanted to take over Canada to get rid of the Empire on North American continent more than any other reason. Both countries have urban myths about the war. Tirronan (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the basic point here is that American Wikipedia authors see it as a draw, while Canadians. British and everyone else see it as a victory for Canada, because the invasion was defeated, and impressment was stopped even before the war started. No matter how it is discussed, the bias in wikipedia authors comes through. The results should reflect this.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The header for this section says it all - obviously Americans are the only people who have misconceptions about this conflict. Further, I think the above writer does indeed make a valid point about bias, albeit for completely the wrong reason. Other than that, the article has a few spelling errors, e.g., centre for center.Jmdeur (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not spelling errors, they are English as opposed to American English. We use one form consistently in any article, this one happens to be in the -re -our form. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Son, the spelling comment was what we over here call humour (sic) - y'all appear to something similar, but having watched a couple of episodes of Benny Hill, it's pretty obvious you Brits are far ahead of us in sophistication.Jmdeur (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't let it surprise anyone that this is a difficult article to find a neutral POV. The most respected canadian history book on this topic is Pierre Berton's, "The Invasion of Canada". This war is a strong motivator for Canadians' long standing mistrust of a militarily capable United States.--Fbfree (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hickey and other USA historians
Most of the footnotes cited are by historians from the USA. Naturally they give the viewpoint of the USA. The body of the essay says that the expansionist desire of the USA has been discounted, as if it has been universally discredited. It has only been discounted in the USA. In Canada, the view is still that the USA invaded and attempted to conquer Canada.

The citations and footnotes show that the article is biased towards the USA viewpoint. Just from googling I found that Hickey is a professor in Nebraska and  Mark Lardas is from Texas. David Upton's works are not in print and it nothing about him can be ascertained. Heidler, David S. and Heidler, Jeanne T are also from the USA judging from their books. There were no Canadian historians at all used in this article. Frankly it is unprofessional. Is this to be only the history from the USA viewpoint or is it to supposed to be unbiased? It it is easy to see that it needs a major rewrite. Nacken (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)NackenNacken (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nacken seems to think that American scholars who devote their careers to getting the facts right somehow can't shake the political views of the people in their own country in 1812--but which people, the pro-war Americans in 1812 or the anti-war Americans. In the 21st century are there differences between scholars based in Alberta and Nebraska, say? No one has cited a single sentence that needs changing. Rjensen (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rjensen I corrected a small spelling error, and yes unless we are willing to support the fact that the war was entirely about Canada and that Canada won I suspect we'll never quite get an end to this. Nacken there are not many Canadian Historians that would support that view either but there are some and some American historians as well, they are in a small minority but you can find a few. We don't get into all that much opinion here as much as what happened where and when and as far as I am concerned most of the rest is conjecture or national myth.  American has them as well and to my best judgement it won't get in here either. Tirronan (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Canadians were not much consulted--and apparently the folks in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Quebec supported the crown but were only moderately involved in the war itself, or so say the historians of those places. (The chief activity seems to be trading with Yankees who smuggled goods across the border.) As for Ontario (that is, what is now Ontario), most of the residents were American born and the British officials worried about their loyalty; I think most of them were neutral. Now the Canadians who were REALLY involved were the Indians, and they did not fare too well at the peace conference, being sold out by London. I think we can agree they lost a lot.Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One might think that the Empire Loyalists, who'd left or been pushed out of the States thirty years earlier for being too loyal to the Crown or too hostile to Independence, would have been keen to keep the Yanks away and that some would have been gratified by opportunities for revenge or recouping what they'd lost. But I don't know their feelings for a fact, or what part they could have played in the War itself. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with much of what Nacken has to say, it should be pointed out that there is a view by some in Canada and Britain that US history writing on this war, as well as on other subjects, is slanted (biased) toward the US. The British writer Jon Latimer said as much when he wrote his well-received book 1812: War with America in 2007. In at least two interviews he gave to British newspapers after the publication of his book he criticized US historians for ignoring British sources among other things.


 * In the Evening Leader in Wrexham, Wales he stated: "Pretty much everything about it has been written by Americans or Canadians, and in the case of the former this has led to a severe distortion of it as American writers have almost completely ignored British sources."


 * Nacken is just reflecting this type of opinion. Dwalrus (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even admitting that some historians neglected British sources, we should hear more about Latimer's view of the 'severe distortion' and how it might have prevented a correct reading of the outcome of the war. I would be interested to see the full text of those published interviews with Jon Latimer, whose book was very good. (Reading the book, I must have overlooked something because I don't recall much criticism of American historians). After seeing our article on Latimer I did look up his Times obituary, but it doesn't mention how his book might have changed the historical verdict on the War of 1812. EdJohnston (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote that I gave from an article in the Evening Leader in Wrexham is unfortunately no longer on the web. It was published in November 2007 and was very short. However, there is another article from Bucks Free Press from the same time period that is still on the web. You can find it at Bucks Free Press. Notice the third paragraph.
 * Latimer did in fact make a number of criticisms of US historians in his book. On the first page of the introduction he criticizes George Bancroft and Henry Adams for their writing and he continues to snipe at US writers throughout his book. His attack on Bancroft is particularly puzzling. In referring to the Battle of New Orleans he wrote: "...the entire conflict was conflated into a stunning American triumph, a version of events effectively carved in stone by George Bancroft in his multivolume History of the United States(1834-1873)." What is puzzling about this comment is that I do not believe that Bancroft's History of the United States covered the War of 1812. It started with the early exploration and gave extensive coverage of the Revolution but stopped with the writing of the constitution.
 * You are right in pointing out that Latimer's book has not changed the scholarship on the War of 1812. Despite the massive bibliography and more than 2000 endnotes it did not add anything new of significance to our understanding of the war that had not already been written.Dwalrus (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite so, Latimer freely criticized historians (Bancroft) without so much as picking up Bancroft's book (which ends in 1789). Latimer also makes elementary errors: in the newspaper interview he says, regarding the burning of Washington,"few people in Britain know about this event due to more urgent matters that were happening in Europe at the time. Britain was at war against Napoleon's France, and the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 eclipsed conflicts elsewhere." Well that's false chronology. The Washington burning was Septrember 1814, Napoleon abdicated in April 1814, and Waterloo was in 1815. Only the US was fighting Britain in Sept 1814, surely a point that every observer in Britain at the time knew perfectly well. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the crux issues, as Nacken and others are proposing, was the cause of the war and we would have to contend that the primary cause was American greed for Canadian land. Now mind it has to the THE primary cause, not one of the contributing factors.  Here you run up against the records of the American Congress, and Presidents Jefferson, and Madison.  Here is where I take issue, because yes if the singular and primary issue causing the war was American desire to annex Canada then indeed America lost the war.  However we have a pesky problem in that the records of most of the American and British government branches are still available.  By gosh they just don't agree with what take on the causes of the war.  Then you have the problem that New England states would have NEVER GONE TO WAR OVER LAND THEY DIDN'T WANT.  The Warhawks were centered in the south and west and there is where you can find some support for the theory however there is this pesky problem that the rest of the American factions didn't agree.  You can read of the fury about restraint of American trade, violation of American territorial waters, and impressment, that drove the issue, but that was and remains the issue with Nacken's proposition.  That is the reason the vast majority of modern historians don't support that theory anymore.  That doesn't leave me or any of the other editor's much room to agree with this proposal for a change.Tirronan (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tirronan is quite right. Note the anomaly: Canadians have been asserting what AMERICANS thought in 1812--even though it is the American historians who have poured through the pamphlets, speeches and letters of American politicians--sources that require lots of research time Washington and US state archives. Few if any Canadians have done this kind of work in American archives.  I can assure folks up north that Americans are happy to welcome Canadian scholars to Washington. (Advice: Washington is pleasant in the winter but miserably hot in the summer). Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My theory is that you have two views on this war (1) A victory for Canada and Britain, and a loss for the US based on Military objectives or (2) a draw based on the peace Treaty. There are historians who support both views, unfortunately Wikipedia supports the pro American viewpoint that the war resulted in a draw. The results box should reflect that this is seem as a victory in Canada, and by historians such as Hickey, Lucas, Eisenhower and Latimer, while it is seen as a draw in the United states and by US Historians. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A victory for the Canadian First Nations? more of a smashing defeat for them. A victory for the British commanders-- like Ross? (killed in battle), Prevost? (facing court martial for defeat when he died), Brock? (killed in battle), Sheaffe? (defeated in battle and recalled), Tecumseh? (killed in battle), Duke of Wellington (refused to get involved because he said war was a draw), or Packenham (killed in battle). It's hard to find a successful British general who survived--Drummond, maybe, but he lost as many as he won.Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I do disagree with what you say here, in particular Wellington, but my point is not to come here and argue, but to point out that only one of two recognised opinions on the results of the war is shown in the results box. Until the Canadian/British, (and the view of a number of major historians including Hickey who is possibly the foremost expert on the war) viewpoint is represented in there, this article is pro US biased and misleading.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm. Well, yes, certainly Whig history would say that but by no means is that the view of all British historians. And Whig history is a dirty word in history these days. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the common view in Canada, as well as the view taken by some American Historians. Would you say that Hickey and Eisenhower are "Whig historians"? It certainly was the view taken by British Parliament at the time. I'm pretty sure the only three British published books on the war written by Benn(Canadian but British publisher), Latimer and Lucas, all indicate that the US lost the war.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's look at Canadian historians in the last 40 years --they have not been calling a victory. Morton says the war was a "stalemate" but the Americans "did win the peace negotiations." (Morton, Kingdom of Canada 1969 pp 206-7). Arthur Ray says the war made "matters worse for the native people" as they lost military and political power [Ray in Brown ed Illustrated History of Canada (2000) p 102.] Bumsted  says the war was a stalemate but regarding the Indians "was a victory for the American expansionists." [Bumsted, Peoples of Canada (2003) 1:244-45.Thompson and Randall note that the "land hunger" thesis has been "largely dismissed by historians," though they admit it is still taught in Canada's schools. They say "the War of 1812's real losers  were the Native peoples who had fought as Britain's ally." [Thompson and Randall Canada and the United States (2008) pp 21, 23] Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am suprised that so many Canadian writers would not claim this as a victory for their country(and I'm greatful that you post this as I don't have easy access to Canadian materials), my only comment here is that possibly they seem to be labouring more on the peace negotiations, which highlights a stalemate, rather than which side achieved their military objectives, which tends to show the US as having lost. In any case, the Canadian people generally, from what I read, see this as a victory, even if not all their historians do. IN addition to the people of Canada, there is still a number of historians that do see this as a victory for Canada, which unfortunately is not reflected here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record here is the letter of the Duke of Wellington or more to the point what he thought about the state of the war as pertained to the Ghent negotiations, and in the article is the citation as well. So where exactly do you get the military victory you proclaim when the leading military commander of the Empire makes statements like this?

The Prime Minister wanted the Duke of Wellington to command in Canada and finally win the war; Wellington said no, because the war was a military stalemate and should be promptly ended  I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America ... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You can not on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power ... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.[72]


 * "a number of historians"--let's talk about them. first please name a few. Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)'

Some of them I mentioned just a bit above, Latimer, Hickey, Eisenhower and I think Carl Benn (I haven't got his book, but I think that is the way he leans). Also CP Lucas. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Historians and Canadian viewpoint that the war was not a stalemate
There are two viewpoints by historians and countries about this War. By the people of Canada it is seen as a victory. In the United States, it is seen as a stalemate. The points of view are based on two different logics, the stalemate is based on the fact that no land was exchanged in the treaty. The Canadian/British victory claims that the US lost the war based on the achievement of objectives.

As mentioned before(errrh a few times!) I disagree with the premise held here that the opinion by some of the editors on this page that the prevailing view is that the war was a stalemate. While some argue that based on the peace Treaty, both sides were stalemated in the War, a number of historians, including Donald Hickey, who is acknowledged as one of the most authoritative historians on this war, argue that the war was a British Victory. It is also the traditional view within Canada that the war was a Canadian/British victory. The Historian's argument is based on the fact that Canada and Britain achieved their objectives and the US largely did not, while the viewpoint that the war was a stalemate is most often based on the results of the Treaty of Ghent.

Quotes from Authors who see the War of 1812 as a British/Canadian victory:

“An assessment of objectives set in 1812 and realised in 1814 points to a British victory, although perhaps one that is not clear in the modern mind, partly because the war occurred in an age when diplomatic negotiations, the preservation of dignity, and compromise marked treaties, rather than the images of unconditional surrender that have come to dominate our consiousness.” (Carl Benn, “The War of 1812”, p82 – 83, 2002)

“So who won the war of 1812? The biggest Winner was Canada; then came Great Britain; then the Indians living in Canada. The biggest losers were the Indians living in the united states; after them came the United States itself, which (the glorious triumphs at sea, on the Northern lakes, and at New Orleans notwithstanding) for the first time in its history lost a war.”(Donald Hickey, “Don’t give up the ship”p 304 – 305, 2006)

“America's first Vietnam...Yes, good analogy. Good analogy. We had always claimed before Vietnam that we'd never lost a war. Well, it's a question of definition, but if you... usually if your criterion is whether you obtained your objectives in a war, we lost that one as much as we lost Vietnam. We just came back to our own shores and that was the end of it. Painted differently”. (John Eisenhower “War of 1812 – Background and ideas” http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/hist_likevietnam.html)

“Britain was content to settle for the 1812 Status quo, and this is what Britain got. The United States, in contrast, achieved none of its war aims, and in these terms, the War of 1812 must be seen as a British Victory, however marginal.” (Jon Latimer “1812 War with America”. P 4 2007)


 * They did not get the status quo, as a major part of the reasons behind America going to war, impressment, ceased after 1814 and never resumed, so that is most certainly a victory for America (which was a war aim that somehow Mr. Latimer also missed). In addition, the trade agreement signed with Britain was a landmark agreement between the two countries under President James Madison, establishing America as a power in its own right. Based upon these two indiputable elements of the post-war world at that time, to claim it was a British victory boggles the mind, at it most certainly was NOT the status quo, not in the least. Madison's successful efforts in "defense of the rights and independence of the United States" as stated perfectly in U.S. Presidents and Foreign Policy by Carl C. Lodge, despite the burning of Washington and the stifling of trade, proved that Mr. Latimer's conclusion is not correct. I have seen a disturbing trend of British historians swinging the pendulum of analysis the other way in the War of 1812- for instance, in Command of the Ocean by N. A. M. Rodger, the efforts of the United States Navy were summarily relegated to a very, very small part unfairly. I am hoping that an unbiased, serious look at the war will some day be written.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

“It was the failure of men who had once been citizens of the British Empire to subdue other British Colonists lining their frontier and facing their settlements, that makes this war one of the first-rate importance to those who study colonial history. The war was the national war of Canada…..It was at once the supplement and the corrective of the American war of Independence” (C.P.Lucas “The Canadian War of Independence” p 259, 1906)

The article needs to indicate that there are two viewpoints on this war, one as seen by the Canadian people and these historians that the war was a victory for Canada and Britian, and the other view that the war was a draw. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This still isn't anything new and still leaves what the 98% of historians with a markedly different view? Tirronan (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * as seen by the Canadian people ??? as seen by the Canadian First Nations it was a terrific defeat for those Canadian people.--and they were the Canadians who did most of the fighting, after all.Rjensen (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RJensen - as seen by mainstream Canadian society then. Equally you don't judge Mainstream US society by the viewpoint of Native Americans, or anyone one smaller group. Tirronan - "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I think we would count this as a significant view, considering the status of some of these historians, and it is the prevailing view amongst Canadians?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that the right thing is done, and both viewpoints are presented.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article should explain that there are differing views amongst historians, why on earth wouldn't you make it clear?

~BSdetector~ 10th November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, C.P. Lucas (Sir Charles Prestwood Lucas, 1853–1931) was a Englishman and never lived in Canada. He was a civil servant in the Colonial Office and wrote on the history of the empire. His popular book on 1812 appeared in 1906 and did not have access to the last 100+ years of scholarship.  It was a military history based on the dispatches of the generals. See  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004 and review of Lucas. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has indicated for a long time that Canadians view the war as a victory for themselves. It can be found in the last paragraph of the Overview section. I don't see anything wrong with adding a sentence or two mentioning that there is a disagreement among historians over the results. Don Hickey states the problem on page 299 of his book Don't Give Up the Ship: "Many wars produce a clear result, but not the War of 1812. Reflecting this ambiguity, scholars assessing the outcome have reached very different conclusions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwalrus (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agrees, there should be some references in the article, and the Infobox should be corrected to reflect the different viewpoints. As you say, Canadians see it as a victory is already noted in the article, though not in the infobox. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok here's a proposed synthesis of Canadian expert opinion-- I think this summarizes expert opinion of Canadian scholars:
 * The consensus of Canadian historians is that the war was a "stalemate" but the Americans "did win the peace negotiations." [Morton, Kingdom of Canada (1969) pp 206-7]. The war was a victory in the sense that Canada survived as part of theBritish Empire, but it also created a spirit of English-Canadian nationalism. [Granatstein, ‘’Yankee Go Home’’ pp 25, 34]. The chief losers were the First Nation as they lost military and political power [Arthur Ray in Brown ed Illustrated History of Canada (2000) p 102.] Bumsted argues that while the war was a overall a stalemate regarding the First Nations it was "a victory for the American expansionists." [Bumsted, Peoples of Canada (2003) 1:244-45.] Thompson and Randall note that the "land hunger" thesis has been "largely dismissed by historians," though they admit it is still taught in Canada's schools. They conclude, "the War of 1812's real losers were the Native peoples who had fought as Britain's ally." [Thompson and Randall Canada and the United States (2008) pp 21, 23]. Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deathlibrarian, I do not agree that there is any need to change the Infobox. As it stands now it is a straightforward factual statement of the ending of the war and is sufficient for an Infobox. A sentence in the article, the Overview or Consequences section, that historians do not have a unanimous opinion on whether the war was a stalement or win/loss is all that is needed.Dwalrus (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why, oh why, are we ploughing this ground just after sending the previous discussion to the already-overloaded Who won? archives? And why advertise for more wranglers? But (to repeat myself from earlier threads) I agree: the Information Box necessarily has to be concise, terse or gnomic, and can't absorb anything more than the barest facts. The finer philosophical points about who "really" won the Crimean War, or the Korean, or all those Balkan Wars, or even the American, Spanish & English Civil Wars, can't be compressed into a Procrustean Info Box. Ditto for this War. The nature and existence of different well-considered historical (and popular) conclusions, however, should be noted in the text. I thought they already were. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox states one opinion, that it was a stalemate. The article will point out that the there is not a unanimous opinion on whether it was a stalemate or a British Victory. A lot of people will flick to the Infobox to quickly read the result, and not read the text of the article - I agree the infobox needs to be concise, but it should reflect the article, not just one opinion. It should reflect the fact there are divergent opinions on the result of the war.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is just trolling, I am sorry but I will not change my mind of the same arguments repeated endlessly as I stated before. Tirronan (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a small para that goes something like "Many historians saw the War of 1812 as a stalemate, based on the results of the Peace Treaty and the return to the status quo after the end of the war. Conversely, other historians saw the war as a British/Canadian victory and a loss for the US, based on the achievement of objectives(add references here). The war is generally seen as a victory within Canada, and a stalemate in the US" Please add comments. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will give you an example as to what I did in the section Theme system under the article Byzantium under the Heraclians. Three viewpoints emerged regarding the beginning of the system, and so I mentioned them all and provided footnotes for them, using three sources that I felt best represented all views. The link to that section is right here; be sure you look at the footnotes at the bottom of the article. Splitting the viewpoints into two distinct paragraphs for this controversy gives them both equal footing, which I find to be a lot better.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Deathlibrarian since this accurately reflects reality. This article has been on almost permanent lockdown because some editors seem incapable of understanding that there are very different perspectives on this war. Of course we all know the reason why a more comprehensive view of the outcome is not permitted to appear, and that is petty schoolboy nationalism. The fact that the war is viewed as a victory in Canada (and many other countries) is undeniable, so why try and hide it?

~BSdetector~ 11th November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't even get the majority of Canadian Historians to agree with this view. Tirronan (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsieur, that looks like a good example of how to deal with it. The different viewpoints, with different references, from the various national points of view and references from varous historians. Considering how much debate there is here over this topic, it is remarkable that something like this has not been done already. The strategy to deal with the discussion in some ways has veered more towards supression (somewhat understandable considering some of the arguments that go on), but this sort of discussion is only ever going to be resolved by having an adequate section in the article that deals with the various viewpoints. What should the new section be called?Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point there is no agreement for a new section. You need to get an agreement first.Dwalrus (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't need to be an agreement for the new section- naturally, after a war, you have to have a section describing the outcome, and of course who won/lost/etc. To pose the question even for a new section would delay the improvement of the article, wouldn't you say?  Monsieur dl    mon talk 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree and if we did we would just get the 50 million American's that insist just as rabidly that this is an American victory and a return to the constant edit wars. This is getting old beyond telling and this section is going to go with all the others in a few days.  If you can't leave this alone then perhaps it is time to refer this to the admins and let you rant at them. Tirronan (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Aftermath and Consequences sections together are already longer than most articles in Wikipedia, so it's absurd to say the subject's neglected. And the Information Box is no place for the "ultimate" consequences of a war (whatever they may be, and no matter the degree of dispute). However, because, I think, of all the previous wrangles, I think that the ends of the lead and the Overview are a little cursory in answering the ordinary reader's question of what happened or why the war might be important. Now, I don't think that they need many extra words, let alone another paragraph or another section, but (fond, foolish, vain, inane hope) I think they could be made a little sharper without introducing bias. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, we must also get the "50 million rabid British" that insist that somehow after a treaty which won nothing for Great Britain that it was a victory without question. To not include all viewpoints by notable historians on the subject is to bury one's head in the sand and to be dishonest. I simply cannot understand how being neutral and presenting all views is ever a bad thing. By stifling the ability to present all viewpoints because of fear of edit wars is not a valid reason; I'm sorry, it is not.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"I simply cannot understand how being neutral and presenting all views is ever a bad thing" Indeed, I agree. Sorry if I jumped the gun on a new section. Considering that there is disagreement about the outcome of the war by historians, and that it is something much discussed here on the discussion pages, wouldn't it be a good idea to give it its own section so the two viewpoints are clear and people don't just keep on debating it?. I think with some wars the outcome is clear, so may be not so much needs to be written about them. But with wars where there is opposing viewpoints on the outcome, with arguments from both sides, then addressing the viewpoints in a bit more detail, and possibly give it its own section may be warranted. In any event, IMHO the two viewpoints, the peace treaty stalemate viewpoint, and the British/Canadian Objectives based decision need to be presented with enough detail that they make sense. I guess if we can't agree here, may be it needs to go to mediation or Admins? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * no one here has yet found a Canadian historian who calls the war a victory for Canada. They do say it was a terrible defeat for the First Nation of Canada, the founding nation most involved. Rjensen (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen, Carl Benn is a Canuck (Carl Benn PhD, is the Chair of the Department of History at Ryerson University in Toronto, having previously been Chief Curator of the City of Toronto's Museums and Heritage Services): “An assessment of objectives set in 1812 and realised in 1814 points to a British victory, although perhaps one that is not clear in the modern mind, partly because the war occurred in an age when diplomatic negotiations, the preservation of dignity, and compromise marked treaties, rather than the images of unconditional surrender that have come to dominate our consiousness.” (Carl Benn, “The War of 1812”, p82 – 83, 2002)Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I was hopeful we were going to come to some conclusion, but it looks like we have opposing views which are going nowhere...and this section is now reaaaaally long. I'd like to recommend Mediation_Cabal so we can all move on with this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please... this way we can finally find a solution to this.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If Deathlibrarian/ Monsieur are sincere about "presenting all views" of the opinions of various historians on who did or did not win the War of 1812 then there are more than two views on this subject. This was made very clear by Donald Hickey in Don't Give Up The Ship. He lists four different opinions by historians. If all views are not presented then the accusation can be made that there is not a sincere desire to present all views. Another point that has to be kept in mind is that this view/opinion of who won is a subjective judgment and therefore we are by necessity entering the area of point of view. This cannot be avoided if we go there. A perfect example of this is the quote from Carl Benn that Deathlibrarian gave that "An assessment of objectives set in 1812 and realised in 1814 points to a British victory...." It can be pointed out that objectives do not stay the same during a war and that after Napoleon abdicated in May 1814 the British clearly were striving to take areas of the US for themselves (ostensibly for security) and a huge area of the US for their Indian allies. This was made evident by the delay in the British negotiators in arriving at Ghent and by the movement of British troops to North America. The British demands on the first day of negotiations at Ghent also show these British objectives. Those military objectives were not achieved and that goes into the equation of who won or lost or if it was a stalemate. There is no question that by moving into the highly subjective opinion/point of view of whether anyone won this war the article will become more controversial. BTW, the latest book on this war is by a British academic named Jeremy Black. Titled The War of 1812 in The Age of Napoleon it argues the war was a stalemate. Prior to this book I read Unlikely Allies by a Canadian academic, Duncan Andrew Campbell, who also sees the war as a stalemate and a win for both sides. Clearly some of these views are more complicated and do not go along strictly national lines. If some want to take this issue to mediation then do so.  Dwalrus (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to take this to mediation, we went with the actual outcome because it is beyond dispute that both sides went with Status quo, otherwise you get into the who shot John with the various adherents all screaming for their view to be held over all. I rather look forward to defending the current position and will be happy to live with whatever the result is.Tirronan (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dwalrus, I am sincere about presenting all views, and I'm quite happy to represent all significant views argued by historians, including the four views in Hickey's "don't give up the ship" . I was only arguing that the stalemate-British/canadian victory views were represented as they were the two significant views and up until now, no one else had mentioned the others. But as you say, Hickey points out there are other viewpoints that other historians argue, so no reason not to include those. Everyone agrees on mediation, so that seems to be our next step. Is everyone happy to be mentioned as a party to the mediation? Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for representing all views here. Just because I disagree with the "British victory" opinion doesn't mean that I would be opposed to it being included with the other viewpoints, not in the least. This dispute is hardly the most virulent one I have been involved in, for Greek genocide is far more deep a subject with so many pitfalls it is extremely dangerous ground. Here, I can safely say that the numerous examples of scholarship in this area will no doubt be able to make it into the article rather easily, for they are based on mostly solid facts rather than mostly nationalistic observations, despite the difference in conclusions.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have registered the dispute for mediation with Mediation Cabal - just waiting for someone to be assigned to it. Hope thats ok, its normal wikipedia procedure to go to the informal cabal rather than straight to formal mediation. And yes, I disagree with some of the viewpoints that some historians have about the War, but I think it important the significant viewpoints are show here.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the link for the dispute I am requesting that all the regular editors please get involved. Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812. Tirronan (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the main point of contention over a "Canadian" victory is that no such a country existed at the time. (i.e. Canadians should stop trying to find ways to be better than American) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.163.248 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Native Americans, Indians and First Nations
Please see other discussions on this page and in the most recent two archives (for 2008 and 2009) above for earlier exploration of these topics in depth.

I just reverted a wholesale change of nearly all references to participants whose ancestors were in North America before 1500 to "Native Americans". (This included at least two titles of other works, which is clearly incorrect and would make it impossible to identify and find those works.)

There is no good single correct answer as to the best title in a given context (other than titles of other works). So "Native American" isn't absolutely wrong, but changes should be discussed here first.

To summarise some points made in earlier discussions,
 * 1) "First Nations" is familiar and well-understood in Canada today, but not outside, and was not in common use anywhere before about 1970;
 * 2) "Native Americans" is problematic not only because it was not generally used in 1812 but because many of the tribes and peoples involved lived on both sides of the European-established borders, or had crossed those lines for decades to hunt, fish, herd or trade;
 * 3) "Natives", "Indians" and "tribal" are considered to have unfavourable connotations today, whatever their historical or scholarly use, while "Amerindian" is unfamiliar to some general readers of Wikipedia;
 * 4) "Indians" or "American Indians" were often used in this article because it was the term used by many of the people who fought and lived through the War of 1812;
 * 5) "American Indian" (like "Native American") may confuse general readers of Wikipedia who don't see "American" as referring to North America rather than the United States.

There's nothing sacred about the choices that were made before August 2009, but they often represented a general consensus or the best answer that could be accepted by most of the editors at the time. Before adding to the already-long discussion of these topics, it would be helpful to see what's already been said, at least in the last year or so. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The term 'savage' is appropriate to the period and was widely used. It is the only term used to reference 'Indian Savages' in the Declaration of Independence. Written by the same man who used the 'mere matter of marching' line to describe the aquisition of Upper Canada. He was told to leave out blaming King George for slavery in 1776, he was after all having children with at least one of his slaves (she was also his sister-in-law) The term 'exterminate' or 'extermination' are used repeatedly by American commanders in proclamations and orders to troops. Every country has baggage. The Founding Fathers were not nice guys. Perhaps they had to be nasty to survive in their era. Jim Hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.250.2 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal threat
The "United States" subsection of results presently begins"The U.S. ended the aboriginal threat on its western and southern borders."I know what the writer was trying to say, and how he or she was trying to say it, and what problems she or he was trying to fix or avoid with such phrasing. However, it raises its own difficulties of connotation and clarity, although I'm stumped about how to improve it. "Native American threat", "native threat" and "Amerindian threat" each has problems; would something like "the threat from Indian nations [or tribes] on its western and southern borders" work better? Is "threat" itself too loaded a word, even if it reflects how westerners and southerners felt?
 * How about "ended the Indian barrier to expansion into U.S. territory to the south and west." Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Errrh, yeah, the phrase "Aboriginal threat" is at the least a loaded term, and at the worst pretty insulting. I read most of the military efforts of the Indians, bar a few examples here and there, as being provoked by US Expansion (which, coming from an Aussie's point of view, is a nice way of saying US annexation of Indian Territory). Rjensen your term is better and more neutral. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

¶ I'm not the historian here, so I'll defer to whatever the consensus might be, but I think there are two possible challenges to the U.S.: The best phrasing depends on what "threat" the U.S. was trying to avert or end. Was it a threat, a barrier, an obstacle, a challenge, or something else? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Barriers to future expansion, and
 * 2) The possibility of attempted reclamation or re-seizure of previously-Indian-settled lands now occupied by Euro-Americans.
 * I suggest "ended Indian resistance to US expansion."Dwalrus (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we use the "US ended Indian resistance on its Western and Southern borders." ? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Use of "borders" in this context is inaccurate since the 1783 Treaty of Paris and the Louisiana Purchase put the US borders beyond these areas of conflict with the Indians. Dwalrus (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nor did the end of the War of 1812 end Indian resistence.Tirronan (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * it pretty much ended Indian attacks on the frontier. compare the lttle damage that Black Hawk was able to do in 1832. For the next 50 years there was not much resistance except in Florida (which was not part of US in 1815) Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits of American to U.S. and Indian to indigenous/aboriginal/native
One editor has recently started systematically changing all instances of "American" to "U.S.", and (far more contentiously) all instances of "Indian[s]" to "aboriginal", "native" or "indigenous". I understand the reasons for such editing, but we really need a consensus before doing all that; otherwise I might feel forced to revert the whole lot until some consensus to do this is reached.

In general, I understand the present consensus to be to use the terms that contemporaries would have used, so long as these are neither obscure to current Wikipedia users (e.g. "Upper Canada"), outright offensive (e.g. "savage") nor completely ambiguous (which "American" and "Indian", in context, are not).

As can be seen by a thread above this one and others in this Talk Page's archives, there is no entirely-satisfactory term for those whose ancestors lived in North America before John Cabot's voyages. Amerindian and indigenous are too academic or vague for the general reader, native and tribal have pejorative connotations, First Nations is obscure to non-Canadians, and Native American (or Canadian), apart from technically including anyone of any race who was born in North America, places many tribes within boundaries they themselves would not have acknowledged.

There's of course room for further discussion. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * the term of choice by historians is "American"--historians never use USA as an adjective ("USA leaders")--it's POV usage and I changed it. "Indians" is the term used by most historians and also by the official government agencies today in both the US and Canada: "Bureau of Indian Affairs" and "Indian and Northern Affairs Canada". Some historians use "aboriginal" is also standard. In the well-known Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples (1999) ed. by Paul R. Magocsi, with contributions by 300+ scholars, "Indian" "native" and "aboriginal" are each used on about 100 pages, showing that among scholars each term is standard; note that "Native American" only appears twice, suggesting it is not standardamong scholars. Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Donald Hickey has a note on terminology at the beginning of his book Don't Give Up The Ship. In it he writes:"'I have also followed common practice in using the terms 'United States' and 'America' interchangeably. To refer to aboriginal people, I have used the words 'Indian' or 'native' since the term 'Native American' does not work well for Indians living in Canada, and terms like 'aboriginal,' 'First People,' and 'First Nation' are not used in the United States.'"


 * I am afraid that we will see terminology continually changed no matter what terms are used. Dwalrus (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * unless/until you get a definitive statement from the Tribes involved as to what they wish to be called as a group I don't think you ever will have a good terminology. Tirronan (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

American expansion into the Northwest ... impeded by Indian raids.
American expansion into the Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin) was impeded by Indian raids

I noticed this sentence in the first section, does this neutralise the fact that the US expansion is into Indian territory?(which I assume was the case)...or is the implication enough. Should this be "American expansion into the Northwest Indian territories(Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin) was impeded by Indian raids."Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That statement is very general and not too well done, IMO. I hate, hate, hate those parentheses... why do that when you can say "...into the Northwest Indian territories of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin..." It really doesn't give a full picture of the reality, and the reference isn't sourced correctly- the inline citation should be full for the first footnote of Bowler. I'm inundated in World War I writing and unable to fix it properly... maybe some help to make it better?  Monsieur dl    mon talk 02:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good point about the parentheses, not really needed. "American expansion into the Northwest Indian territories of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin was impeded by Indian raids". I guess my main point was that these were territories where the Indians lived already, and the Indians were opposing the expansion because it was their land, rather than just being white expansion into "unoccupied" land. I may be looking at this too much from the Australian experience though.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your point is valid, but I don't think anyone will be writing in the style of a 19th century American historian to reflect this period- at least I hope not. "Indian territories of" is also, now that I look at it, wholly inaccurate. Also, only parts of Wisconsin were of the Northwest Territory. Heck, I'm going to go ahead and revise the sentence and make it clear. You got me!  Monsieur dl    mon talk 13:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hasn't the meaning now been changed? Prior edit was to the point (unsourced) that expansion wasn't happening as quickly as some might have wanted and, in the following sentence it says that Canadians thought the US wanted to gain more territory.  The prior edit (again, unsourced) suggests that finding expansion to the West difficult, they might have sought Canada.  The current edit suggests a pattern of expansion.  I have no opinion on which is the case but the two edits are suggesting different things. BobKawanaka (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The meaning should be changed according to sourced material. Western expansion was the main reason for settlement, and I think that other editors should be able to find this material as a follow-up sentence expressing difficulties in settling the land. The article Northwest Territory is awful as virtually all of the text is unsourced; one sentence in this article probably needs far less attention than that article does. However, I'll provide the follow up sentence for the difficulties.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 15:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the Northwest Territory was NOT Indian territory. The British wanted to make it so--that was a longtime goal and they insisted on it for a while at Ghent. However they lost the battles and lost control of the area, so it remained part of the USA. Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjenson - when you say the Northwest was not Indian Territory - are you saying there were no Indians living there? Did the Indians think it was Indian territory? The article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh%27s_War seems to imply the part of the NorthWest (Indiana?) was ceded by the British to the US, but not by the Indians (sorry I haven't read up on this, so forgive me If I'm wrong here). Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Monsieur, I would be careful about using a book like 1812: The War That Forged A Nation by Walter Borneman. This book was written as popular history and not as a particularly scholarly work. Borneman does not document much of what he writes. The statement you put in the article that, "Many of those in the American government did not try to hide the fact that they had their eye on Canadian land beyond their territory," is undocumented. I assume that you took it from what Borneman said on page 28 where he said, "And most westerners made no secret of the fact that they coveted Canada itself." Borneman did not document that comment and his comment is actually very different from your undocumented comment. Dwalrus (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does, on pages 28 and 29 and I included page 29, with the involvement of Clay, the Republican and Federalist comment, and the conduct of Harrison. Look, I didn't want to get involved in making this first paragraph better, because for one it seems like there is a lot more interest in fighting over every single piece of text rather than true collaboration, second because no one seems to get involved in sourcing things and would rather point them out, and lastly and most importantly, I am heavily involved in another history article that requires a lot of careful research. I'll be glad to help, but when help is received with nothing but criticism without help in return, then I get frustrated. I am bowing out of this, hopeful that others can use whatever reference they wish... what I have added is by no means a fringe belief that goes far off of the track, popular history or no.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 18:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsier, I must say, I agree with your comments on the general mood of this page.It definitely isn't easy writing on here...there has been conflict about writing the history of this conflit for at least 140 years, and it is evident here now.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced Leads

 * And to add- do you know how many featured articles have NO sourcing whatsoever in their leads? Far, far too many. I thought it was a bonus just to source this and make it legitimate.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 18:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re featured articles -- Lead section has pertinent information on why many FAs don't have many citations in the lead section. older ≠ wiser 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indian raids was not a part of the section to which the lead refers, and so it was odd to me. I have seen more than a few leads be independent of the article it introduces, so I will keep that in mind and tag a lead when it is incorrect. I just got frustrated earlier today trying to ensure material is properly sourced.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 01:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This happens to be the subject of a current, live discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lead section. Although there are some terrific arguments (including aesthetics) for minimising the use of footnotes in Lead sections, I lean much more heavily to referencing anything that is or could be questioned, and also any phrases or statements that naturally provoke questions not answered with a simple (non-red) Wikilink — on the principle that the Lead section is often all that's reprinted or read. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC) ¶ And as currently written, the relevant part of WP:LEAD reads:"Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."—— Shakescene (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * references don't work well in the lede here. 1) most people are annoyed by references (that's why popular books avoid them like death); 2) anyone who likes them will quickly find them in context in the text.
 * As the "War Aims" paragraph of the Lead is presently written, the references work well, because each supports a different contention. But in an ideal world —where we could come a little closer to consensus not about the war but about how to present the material neutrally— someone would be able to summarise or blend all those clashing, disjointed sentences, and I think such a summary should carry fewer references. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Some articles need every line referenced - others don't. This is more the former. 114.76.87.223 (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent theatres of war
There seem to be quite a few inconsistencies in the stated theatres in which the war took place:


 * 1) In the summary, four theatres are given:
 * 2) Oceans
 * 3) Atlantic coast
 * 4) The long frontier
 * 5) Coast of Gulf of Mexico
 * 6) In "Course of the war" (section three), three theatres are listed in the introductory paragraph:
 * 7) The Atlantic Ocean (explained in section 3.1)
 * 8) The Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier (presumably corresponding to section 3.2, titled 'Great Lakes and Western Territories')
 * 9) The Southern States (can't find a section for this)

I don't have the background knowledge to fix this properly, so hopefully someone else can do it. It's really quite confusing as it is. Matt Gerber (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

¶ It is confusing. I wrote the original sentence in the lead with just the oceans, the Atlantic coast and the border, but then the Gulf was later added. But the current table of contents reads:


 * 3 Course of the war


 * 3.1 Atlantic theatre
 * 3.1.1 Single-ship actions
 * 3.1.2 Blockade
 * 3.1.3 Atlantic coast
 * 3.1.4 Maine
 * 3.1.5 Chesapeake campaign and "The Star-Spangled Banner"
 * 3.2 Great Lakes and Western Territories
 * 3.2.1 Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, 1812
 * 3.2.2 American Northwest, 1813
 * 3.2.3 Niagara frontier, 1813
 * 3.2.4 St. Lawrence and Lower Canada, 1813
 * 3.2.5 Niagara and Plattsburgh Campaigns, 1814
 * 3.2.6 American West, 1813–14
 * 3.3 Creek War [a one-paragraph section]


 * 4 The Treaty of Ghent


 * 4.1 Factors leading to the peace negotiations
 * 4.2 Negotiations and peace


 * 5 Aftermath


 * 5.1 The Battle of New Orleans and other post-treaty fighting
 * 5.2 Losses
 * 5.3 Terms of the Treaty of Ghent

Is there some way of reconciling these divisions with each other and with the text that follows? —— Shakescene (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

¶ To me (again, I've only cursory knowledge of this subject) it makes most sense to keep the 4 theatres of war as listed in the introduction: Oceans, Atlantic coast, The long frontier (this includes the Canadian and Western frontiers, right?), and the Coast of Gulf of Mexico. In section 3, the course of the war could be explained in 4 sub-sections, one for each theatre listed in the introduction. I don't feel like being bold today, so hopefully someone will take this up. I think it would help immensely. Matt Gerber (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is confusing. I added a southern theatre section in order to include the capture of Mobile, Alabama by the US in 1813, since that wasn't really mentioned anywhere and it would later be the only lasting territorial gain for the US. --AW (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To both of you, (1) The long frontier I wrote about is the one between the U.S. and Canada running along the St. Lawrence and through the Great Lakes (I was simplifying a confusing collection of run-on phrases; I don't know what the Western frontier would be); (2) Mobile is covered in what is currently subsection 5.1 The Battle of New Orleans and other post-treaty fighting; perhaps that could be moved up from 5 Aftermath to 3 Course of the War in order to better match the theatres listed in earlier sections. But it got placed where it is as an indirect result of a couple of discussions you can find in the Talk Archives for 2008 or 2009. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the "Western frontier" might correspond to the section currently titled "American West, 1813–14". Maybe frontier is the wrong word for it. In any case, sections "3.3 Creek War" and "3.4 Southern theatre" feel like afterthoughts and might, as noted by Shakescene, be better off moved to another section, though I think a section on the Southern theatre needs to be developed in order to be more coherent with the theatres listed in the intro. Shakescene (and others), do you have any thoughts on my idea of creating 4 sub-sections in section 3, one for each theatre listed in the intro? Matt Gerber (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's part of what I was thinking organizationally, although much depends on content about which I'm unqualified to judge. Perhaps slightly-reworded version of Subsection 5.1's account of New Orleans and Mobile Bay could be moved to a new third or fourth subsection of Section 3 (Course of the War) about the Gulf Coast. Or maybe (this is what I don't know) that's better combined with a Western Frontier or Southern Theatre subsection in Section 3, so as to better match what's promised to the reader in the introduction and Overview. (Or perhaps I need to reword the introductory paragraph's phrase about the fourth theatre.) The campaigns on the Atlantic Ocean and on the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. are naturally combined under 3.1 Atlantic Theatre (under 3 Course of the War), which is one reason the numbers don't match up. I suppose that 3.1.1 single-ship actions & 3.1.2 blockade could be split off from the rest of 3.1 (Atlantic theatre) to match the earlier taxonomy, although that does seem a bit awkward. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812
I wish to link with this page. I have edited some English-language newspapers published between 1793 - 1844 and put the data online at http://www.houghton.hk. There is original information on the background to war in the North America chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.245.207.36 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * After writing about general policies (as reproduced below), I visited your site, and didn't find a North America chapter, only a South America one. The closest I could find was Chapter 14 - Europe again 1810-1823, which discusses embargoes (or what has been recently called "sanctions-busting") and several U.S.-British naval encounters; they may be useful references for the naval experts on this page (not me), but to me they seem too specialized and peripheral to merit listing on War of 1812 for the general non-specialist reader, who's already being offered a wealth of other information. Is there a chapter or section that pertains more closely to the War of 1812? And since the newspapers you cite seem to be mainly English-language ones published in Asia (specifically, you say, "the Bombay Courier and the Canton Register, the latter supplemented by the Friend of China"), and the principal focus of your work is the China Trade and the lead-up to the Opium Wars, what is the special insight that they would provide? Below is the more-general response I'd composed before investigating this site more closely:"See WP:External links for the general policy about such links. If your source is free (and doesn't require a reader to pay or subscribe — or ideally even to register), it might be useful if we could avoid WP:Conflict of interest and self-promotion guidelines. If we, especially those who know much more than I about the War's substance, could take a peek at what you're offering, we might be better able to offer guidance. .... You can understand that there are hundreds of web sites that discuss some aspect of the war, so not every otherwise-useful site can always be listed without overwhelming the ordinary, non-specialist reader. ¶ I think it's best to ask first, as you're doing now, particularly when discussing your own site; but the alternative is to just post your link at War of 1812 and see if someone else challenges its appropriateness. (See WP:Bold, revert, discuss.)" —— Shakescene (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me add two less-discouraging points. The site and its material seems compatible with Wikipedia in that it uses a Creative Commons Share Alike licence, so editors might be able to easily copy some of the material, provided a proper citation and link are provided. Secondly, if Mr Houghton was asking whether his site could cite this article, the same thing applies: Wikipedia has a Creative Commons licence that should allow him to refer to and even copy this article freely, provided it's properly cited. Just copy the URL. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Royal Navy's effect on U.S. trade
Currently part of the "Results of the War" section on Britain reads"Britain's goals of impressing seamen and blocking trade with France had been achieved and were no longer needed. In the early years of the 19th century, and up until the 20th century, the Royal Navy was the dominant nautical power in the world. [101] It used its overwhelming strength to cripple American maritime trade and launch raids on the American coast. However, the Royal Navy was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won most of the single-ship duels during the war.[90] The causes of the losses were many,..."I think the sentence I've underlined, or at least the italicised phrase "and up until the 20th century", may be out of place chronologically. Was the Royal Navy crippling American trade or raiding U.S. coasts in 1835 or 1885? There was commercial, maritime, industrial and even cultural rivalry, but I don't think that naval cannon were usually involved. (And that would have gone against the shared ideologies of capitalist liberalism and a common English-speaking culture.) —— Shakescene (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what they were attempting to get to was that Britain was the dominant naval power through 1918 with a Navy sized to take on take on the next 2 largest navies at the same time. It is also attempting to measure to some degree the sheer shock, in the Empire, at the number of losses that British ships suffered in 1 to 1 combat with US ships.  Again realize that just having a British warship show up against an enemy warship for a century was about a guarantee of a British victory. That was not the case of in this war and it shook even the average citizen to the core.  Given the poor showing of the US Navy in the Revolutionary War it was even more of a shock.  No one on either side of the pond expected much of the US Navy so its outstanding performance, given its size, was stunning in more than one way.  The large US frigates were the 1st of an ugly shock, and the US ship rigged sloop of war class (Wasp, Frolic) were better than the British Brigs that they fought against and gave a literal drum roll of losses in the 3 years of the war.  It all added up to the fact that the USA would have to be respected as a military power in her own right and it was from that point on.  This did much to moderate the treatment of the two countries toward each other. Tirronan (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rearranged Consequences:Britain to better explain what I think was intended. However, although the consequences to the British Isles were bound to be less important than those to North America, I still think this paragraph is very weak as written. The only specific change that it mentions (apart from the end of the blockade and impressment of Americans) is one order for more gunnery practice, an order of whose date (during or after the war?), applicability and durability I am ignorant. It would probably be very difficult anyhow to disentangle Royal Naval changes due to the (Anglo-American) War of 1812 from those arising from the Napoleonic Wars in general, the preceding war with revolutionary France and the Spithead and Nore mutinies of 1797. Even if they're indirect and negative, there's probably room for more-general consequences (or lack of consequences) in Britain.


 * Yes and no, there were directives from the Admiralty that spoke directly to the America's war, directives not to take on US Frigates 1 to 1 being one of them and another to the redirection of gunnery practice again speaks to loosing fights with US ships. Remember at the end of the 1812 war France was at peace with Britain and her main concerns were how the powers in Europe were going to have to redivide power on the continent.  She had a rogue ambassador, a semi-hostile Russia, an almost hostile Prussia, and a War that with the US that apparently just couldn't be won.  The British Navy might have been impressing seamen but it wasn't from US ships anymore.  So yes British main concerns were elsewhere with a US war seen as a unneeded and unwarranted war that benefited the crown not at all.Tirronan (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I've basically reached the limits of my highly-limited competence in this field, is there anything that you or other knowledgeable editors could do to improve the focus of that section, which is after all meant to address the War's general consequences to Britain? How could the text be changed to show the lasting changes to Royal Navy practice and training in particular, and the other less-specialized effects on Britain, if any? (I suppose they could just be reflections and mirror-images of preceding sections, in discussing any changes in Imperial attitudes towards the United States, Canada and the Indian nations.) —— Shakescene (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of the British Navy's issues disappeared after the final fall of Napoleon, it wasn't required to have so large a fleet to man as the active war was over. Many of her ships during the war years were compromised by the need to have many so so designs instead of fewer better manned ships.  I've added a section to one on one ship battles to talk about the cruizer class brigs but this might be expanded in another section.  In this case you had a 18 gun twin masted sloop rigged brig that didn't fair very well against the ship rigged Sloop of War that the American's fielded and in clashes between the two, which was often, the American Sloops almost always won.  Now the British Admiralty wasn't stupid but they needed huge numbers of brigs for various duties and losing 8 of them (at least) to the American's wasn't a concern when there were 108 in the class and much more with the even smaller Cherokee class brig.  Here is where I would outline the issues that were really dragging the Royal Navy and the US into conflict.  She had a huge need for seaman but they kept deserting to better paying and better conditions found in Yankee ships.  The need for manpower was acute, so much so that nothing was thought of patrolling a US harbor searching every ship for contraband, seizing anyone that spoke English and impressing him into service.  It was a gross violation of US National rights and an outright embarrassment.  Much that was wrong with the Royal Navy couldn't be put to right until the war was over and once it was much of the cause went with it.  We see a Royal Navy at the tail end of a 20 year war.  It must also be remembered that America never had an answer to a Royal Navy Squadron and so the numbers versus better quality was answered by that in some degree.  I hope this answered your question if not we can arrange communications if needed. Tirronan (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian raids and NW Territory in lead section
In mid-November one editor (whose talk page says he's a historian) changed this language beginning the third paragraph of the lead section American expansion into the Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin) was impeded by Indian raids. to this (with a slight amendment by another knowledgeable editor)American settlement of the Northwest Territory was moving forward in an attempt at gaining much of the agriculturally valuable lands from the Indians by treaties with friendly Indian tribes, but Tecumseh tried to block those treaties by force and looked to Britain as a military ally against American forces led by Governor of Indiana Territory, William Henry Harrison. Many of those in the Northwest Territory did not try to hide the fact that they had their eye on Canadian land beyond their lands. Localized uprisings by Indians stirred up mutual suspicions between America and Britain that the other was responsible for encouraging unrest. Since I think that's too long and involved, containing too many contestable statements, to fit in a lead section, I tried to compromise with the following sentence. I was trying to match the terse summary sentences further down the same paragraph about other asserted causes of the war.The expansion of non-Indian U.S. settlement into valuable potential farmlands in the Northwest Territory (now the five Great Lakes states) was obstructed by Indian raids.

But that's hardly perfect. Somewhere there should be a happy medium that fits the rest of that paragraph. And if the substance of the longer half-paragraph isn't included somewhere in the body of the article, it probably should be.—— Shakescene (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have Boureman's book here, one of the great contentions has been that the US so desired Canadian lands that it went to war over said lands, problem being all that maritime stuff that is in the Congressional records... However it was commonly believed that the nefarious Brits were actually causing the issue with the Indian tribes and not heaven for-fend the actual intrusions upon their lands by American's....  Part of it is right part of it feeds the great land grab conspiracy theory. One of those is who I told Death to look at as an American supporter of his issues, this is the guy.Tirronan (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, as a non-expert, I'm not disputing (or in much of a position to dispute) the substance, just wondering how to fit the essential elements (with a slightly more-neutral tone) into the rest of the paragraph and with the Lead section as a whole. (The mid-November additions are about as long as the rest of the paragraph which deals with several other issues.) The Indian land-grab thesis is also found in a secondary/tertiary source, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James Loewen (1995).—— Shakescene (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one potential confusion here. The Indian lands in question were in Indiana, Illinois and Michigan, not in Canada. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I originally specified "the Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin)" as you can see at the top, but that was considered a bit clunky. My new language says "the Northwest Territory (now the five Great Lakes states)", and the Northwest Territory was in the U.S. (although there might be confusion with the Northwest Territories of Canada), while Canada has no Great Lakes states. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right then, I guess my observation would be that there is nothing all that contestable about grabbing Indian land since it was done with gusto. I think the "some in the NW territories desiring Canadian land seems a bit out there to me and contestable.  IE you have land all the way past Montana but you just gotta have the stuff the Canadian's are sitting on?  And if you really want it you just move north and declare yourself Canadian and no one cared... so that bit I would drop unless we can come up with strong proof.Tirronan (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And at the risk of repeating myself once too often, there's nothing wrong (or even superfluous) in explaining those motives and fears further down in the article (in Overview, Causes or the Question of U.S. Expansionism), where there's more room for detail, explanation, nuance, qualifications, alternative theses and references. I'm just looking for a way to compress the essence of all those words into something that fits the length and purpose of the lede. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, there is a truth there for certain, and it worked in a couple of different ways, there was certainly a great deal of fear that the British were trying to limit US expansion, there are recurring comments that make me wonder how much the British feared losing Canada even before hostilities began. I am not certain how much the Canadian colony itself feared US expansion and there might be some of where that comes from.  I am virtually certain that the administration thought that inside every Canadian was an American Revolutionary just waiting to burst out (as silly as that sounds now).  Certainly there was in the War Hawks a desire to kick the Empire off the North American continent as they were seen to be interfering in American affairs. Now how that interplays would be interesting. Tirronan (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Being an outsider to US affairs with Indian peoples and the like, some of the tone of the Indians actions as written here, eg Tecumseh, seems to paint them a bit like Viking raiders. They are "raiding" and "obstructing"....aided and abetted by the British. In reality, these people are defending their land, aren't they? The choice of words here subtley, or may be not so subtley, makes a big difference to how the Indians are portrayed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * so what's the problem with the Vikings? The statement explains the motivations for American anger against the British. Actually the Indian situation was much more complicated. Without firearms they were outmatched, but the British provided firearms and encouragement because the British goal was to build a neutral (pro-British) Indian nation in the Midwest, which the British had officially in 1783 and 1795 recognized as American territory. that is pretty serious British interference in American affairs. As far as the Indian motivations, it was not the land so much as the religious revivals led by Tecumseh's brother that aroused the Indians. (For example, no Indians lived in kentucky at the time but they engaged in repeated raids from the north--one of which ambushed and scalped Abe Lincoln's grandfather. Kentucky was angry.)  The land was occupied by tribes that had killed off the predecessor tribes in battle (see Fox Wars. In any case Tecumseh fought against the Indians who had sold lands to the U.S.--he would not allow that.  Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In respect of the Indians, thats exactly the unfortunate attitude to a degree, this article is written from. That the Indians were the aggressors, and helped to perpetrate their crimes by the evil British Empire. I agree, the British had relinquished the land to the US under treaty agreements. However, the Indians had not. From the British point of view, the Indians were a sovereign people. While the Brits used the Indians to a degree (and in some ways, the Indians used the Brits), in many instances you see sympathy and help from the Brits to the Indians in their plight against US who were annexing their land and engaging in some sense, what today would be called racial cleansing.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Careful, I'm am an American white/Cherokee mix myself, as many of us are mixed bloods, politics in this era are not at all nice both sides of that particular arrangement looked upon the other as a marriage of convenience and disagreements were in abundance. You have British commanders locking their forts and allowing their allies to fend for themselves, and Indian's abandoning British forces whenever it became uncomfortable for them.  No the US didn't look upon the Indian's rights and it was pretty plain spoken about it. Again to paraphrase a letter to the Ghent Negotiations, "if you expect us to cede tens of thousands of miles of territory to 20,000 Indians you are out of your mind."   Trying to uphold the British as all that was true and right in Indian affairs isn't a position I think you want to try and accomplish.  This is the same folks that threw Scottish farmers off their fields to starve so the Lairds could raise sheep and the same folks that give you the Irish famine.  Again read the Congress of Vienna which was in session at the same time before you stick your head in a meat grinder.  Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there was an "innocent" party within a thousand miles of the US coastline whatever their protestations at the time.  The Indians did raid, and were counter raided and both sides understood this was a war that didn't have a good outcome for the other side.  The US was determined to expand, but this shouldn't be seen as contrary to the ethics of the time.  Ask the Zulus how great they felt, then again I seem to recall the "White Australia" movement.  There are not any innocent parties where this war is concerned lets not put anyone on a white horse.Tirronan (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How many Indian tribes sided with the US in the war of 1812, compared to the British? How many Canadian tribes fled across the border into the US because of attacks from the Redcoats? YOu may note that I actually said I agree with a lot of what you are saying...I said "the Brits used the Indians to a degree (and in some ways, the Indians used the Brits)". However, I will not wear the demonisation of the British, in regards to Indian affairs. I have said before, there is ample evidence that many of the British were trying to do the right thing by the Indians, and the establishment of a sovereign territory, as well as the attempt at protection of the Indians in the treaty of Ghent are evidence of this. Again, read the Hansard from the period if you want to see what some of the Brits at the time thought. One of the reasons the whole war even started was because the Brits were selling arms to the Indians so they could defend themselves against the US settlers. Colonial history and the treatment of aboriginal peoples is mostly never pretty (including Australia, in particular the Tasmania) however the British treated the Native Americans way better then the US did.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both sides understood at some level that this was a war to the death of one culture or the other, many of us understood that the tribes stood on land we took from others as well. Personally I'm happy that the Cherokee exist today but there is a reason we have a trail of tears.  No stone age culture is going to exist next to an industrial culture, I think that Canada was much kinder than the US but the results were not great for any 1st Nation. If you are waiting for me to say that the US treated the Indians correctly you'd have a long wait.  Just understand that the buffer state worked to the British interest for a couple of reasons and it might be cynicism but I just have a hard time agreeing that at the base of it, that self interest wasn't at the top of the Empire's interest in the Native tribes. Tirronan (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The British were giving the Indians guns, powder, shot, and knives so they could be counted on to be military allies against the US. Robert S. Allen, a Brit or Canadian, wrote His Majesty's Indian Allies: British Indian Policy in The Defence of Canada, 1774-1815 and points out the importance the British placed on the military value of the Indians. On page 13 he states: "British Indian policy from 1774 to 1815 was thus geared primarily to ensuring the preservation and defence of Canada through the military use and assistance of His Majesty's Indian allies."Dwalrus (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)