Talk:War of 1812/Archive 19

Dominant language: Canadian english was hardly used in the war
There were numerous small battles in Canada but apart from Thames the big ones & major activity were elsewhere & at sea. Only a small minority of the soldiers & sailors spoke Canadian English. None of the main players, political leaders or military commanders were Canadian. The dispatches, speeches, orders, communications between the two sides, treaties etc were not written in Canadian English. "Canadian English" barely even existed in 1812. That makes it a very weak 3rd place behind US English and British English. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * English was not the principal language used during the Gallic Wars but the Wikipedia article is written in English. Wikipedia has a policy about which version of English to use and that changes should not be made arbitrarily. If you look at the top of the Talk page you will see


 * Changes from the use of Canadian English should not therefore be made according to ENGVAR unless some attempt has been made to establish that broad consensus and suitable grounds for that chanmge can be argued. Dabbler (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I recalled a discussion in the Archives, so I checked and found this Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_16 which summarises why the decision was made that this should be in Canadian English spelling. Dabbler (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully concur with Rjensen's analysis here. This war was declared by the US Congress on June 18, 1812 against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not Upper and Lower Canada known until 1867 as British North America. This was the first of only five wars ever formally declared by the United States Congress against foreign powers. (The Mexican War in 1846, Spanish-American War in 1898, and entry in WWI in 1917 and WWII in 1941 were the others.)


 * The only two named parties to the Treaty of Ghent concluded on December 24, 1814 and ratified unanimously by the Senate on February 16, 1815 to end the war were "his Britannic Majesty" (George III) on behalf of the United Kingdom, and the United States. British North America was not a party to the Treaty nor is "Canada" on "British North America" mentioned anywhere in its text. Also nowhere else in this Wikipedia entry on the War of 1812 is "Canadian" or Commonwealth English, spelling, or date formatting used. That being the case, I believe that it is time to reconsider the use of "Canadian" English in the article and reach consensus as to whether it makes any sense to use it in this entry. Centpacrr (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dabbler that change should not be made without consensus as has been done. Treaty participation is hardly relevant; for example, no English-speaking nation signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but the article is still in English. Also, see Wp:Retain. Rwenonah (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Using as an argument that "Canadian" English should be used in an article about a war between the United States and Great Britain fought mostly at sea and in US which included its most important engagements in such places as Baltimore (which is the subject of the US National Anthem), in Washington, DC with the burning of the White House and sacking of the Capitol, and as far south as New Orleans, simply because there also were some skirmishes in what is now Canada which came about by the invasion of US forces really just does not make sense to me. Based on that "logic", could it not be equally argued that the Wikipedia article on the American Revolutionary War should also employ "Canadian" English because the first major military actions of the war authorized by the Continental Congress and carried out by American troops came from a major invasion of Canada beginning in May, 1775 and lasting until October, 1776? This included an occupation of Montreal and siege of Quebec with more than 10,000 American troops involved in these actions. Americans also regularly attacked Nova Scotia and Halifax by both land and sea throughout the course of the war including the Battle of Halifax in May, 1782 and the Raid on Lunenburg in July, 1782.


 * I assume, however, that there are no editors in Wikipedia that would ever think it reasonable to propose that "Canadian" English should be used for WP's entry on the American Revolutionary War, and with that being the case my question to the community is what is so different about the War of 1812 that anybody at all thinks that American English is the wrong choice for that article about a war between the same two protagonists -- the US and Great Britain -- fought in virtually the same territory? I really just don't see the logic in that at all. Centpacrr (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * two points: The rule about the original style chosen by the first editor is not helpful, because the original Wikipedia 1812 article was not written by a Wikipedia editor – it was cut and pasted in a mechanical fashion from the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1910 as part of a massive cut-and-paste effort. That Encyclopedia, although edited and owned in Chicago, favoured British spellings.  The second point is that Canadian English is a blend of British and American styles. "The feature that may be most distinctive about Canadian English writers and readers is there calm acceptance, even in the same sentence, of both American and British forms" say  Fee and McAlpine in Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage (1997) p xi.  That is, people who want to use Canadian English are favoring a composite of the British and American variations. For myself I favour that composite here. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My point above is that the War of 1812 is far more associated with the United States than it is with Canada in that it was a war declared by the US Congress and its major engagements were fought on US soil or at sea between American and British forces. Those skirmishes that took place in British North America (as Canada was known as until 1867) were the result of the invasion of those areas by US forces. Centpacrr (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that may be all perfectly true, but it doesn't trump the Wikipedia Manual of Style which says that once a standard English variation has been established, then it should be retained unless there is strong consensus to change it. Dabbler (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Dabbler means: does he think it's ok to use Canadian English? Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The status quo is Canadian English as stated at the top of this Talk page. Wkipedia MOS says that this should only be changed if there is a strong consensus to do so. So far I have not seen much demand to change the status quo and am therefore in favour of retaining Canadian English, which has an advantage for me in that it is quite easy for me as a British born Canadian to use ;-). Dabbler (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an issue with the language variety one way or another, but the war was not fought mostly in the US and at sea. Canada was the main theatre of war until 1814, when the British were for the first time able to go on the offensive. The most important campaigns - in that they dictated the war would continue for three years rather than coming to a quick end - like Detroit and Queenston Heights, were fought in Canada. So basing one's decision entirely on that - as Centpacrr has done - is a mistake. Also, the war is at least equally, if not more, significant in Canada than the US, because it makes a good national myth for the Harper gov. Rwenonah (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we have a Canadian who has never heard of New Orleans (LA), Baltimore (MD), the blockade (coast), Plattsburgh (NY) or the Battle of Lake Erie (OH), and believes that Detroit used to be in Canada instead of Michigan. A bunch of little skirmishes that together were far smaller than New Orleans does in deed make up the Canadian mythology of the war, but that's not quite the whole story. For example there is a shortage of Canadian military or political leaders--the commands were given in British English. I suggest that at the time that half or more of the "Canadians" (if we can use the term) did not speak English of any kind, and most of the rest grew up in American colonies and spoke an American version of English they brought with them when they came in the 1783-1812 era. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dabbler, as Rjensen pointed out above, the so called "establishment" of the English variant for the original War of 1812 article was purely arbitrary as it "was not written by a Wikipedia editor – it was cut and pasted in a mechanical fashion from the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1910 as part of a massive cut-and-paste effort." This hardly seems to be a persuasive or logical basis to retain "Canadian" English for an article about a war declared by the United States against the UK. Centpacrr (talk) 22:48, October 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * So ... Canadian's didn't speak Canadian English at the time. Not really relevant. No one in the Roman Empire spoke English, yet the article is still written in that language. It's clear that Americnas or British didn't speak our modern-day conception of American or British English at the time either; to say that "commands were given in British English" is to ignore that language has a tendency to change over 200+ years, something a historical article (or historian) should keep in mind. Perhaps we have an American who has never heard of Crysler's Farm (QC), Stoney Creek (ON), Moraviantown (ON), Chippawa (ON), or Lundy's Lane (ON), actually the bloodiest battle in North America until the Civil War. All participants were aware that Canada constituted the main front of the war, especially until 1814. Furthermore, the key point is that Canada has taken a great deal more action to commemorate the war, as well as popularize it. The American national myth is equally inaccurate, but less well known (hence, I think the reason you mentioned Lake Erie while discarding Bladensburg). Rwenonah (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It should remain at Canadian English per WP:ENGVAR. There really isn't a valid reason to change it under current policy. -- Calidum 00:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Goodness were these the bloodiest of all battles in North America? No, only in Canadian history. At Lundy's Lane, 260 soldiers were killed on both sides, at Crysler's Farm 133 were killed, at Stony Creek, 39 were killed on both sides, at Moraviantown about 60, and at Chippawa about 170. Thus maybe 680 in all the major battles in Canada.  At New Orleans the British alone had about 390 killed and 550 "missing" and never recovered (and 150 Americans).  Now as pointed out before "Canadian usage" allows a MIX of both US and British forms, which seems ok to me. "The feature that may be most distinctive about Canadian English writers and readers is their calm acceptance, even in the same sentence, of both American and British forms" [Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage] Rjensen (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS states at section 2.3 that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation". Simply because the first posting was arbitrarily not in American English because its text consisted of "cut and paste" material plagiarized from the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica is no reason not to repair that error and follow the "strong ties" policy. The insistence that such an error should never be subject to correction seems to me in this case to be little more than jingoistic wikilawyering. Centpacrr (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, of the five editors who have contributed to this discussion so far, three or four (I think Rjensen is in favour) support the continued use of Canadian English at least until there is a strong consensus that it should not be used. I think you should read WP:AGF before abusing people as "jingoistic wikilayers". Dabbler (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My observation is not intended to be abusive but is based on the impression left by the comments above that imply a view that "Canadian" English should be retained because the War of 1812 is a "big deal" to Canadians and "ignored" by Americans. Really? With respect, that really seems to be pretty thin, highly subjective, and factually unsupportable reasoning in this case. As I mentioned above, the US National Anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner" is derived from a key action in the War, the siege of Fort McHenry in Baltimore on September 13-14, 1814, and the flag itself is one of the nation's most important icons. While there were engagements that took place in Canada (British North America), they were the result of US forces going there to engage British interests there in a war declared by the US (the first of only five to ever be declared by the US Congress), not Canada or the UK. The war also involved the burning of the White House and sacking of the Capitol in Washington, no small thing to the US. It could logically be said that the War of 1812 was declared and fought to clean up issues and consequences left unresolved with the end of the American Revolutionary War which also had significant engagements in what is now Canada but this article correctly employs American English. None of the comments posted by others above, however, have really yet addressed the specifics of the points I have made, the tenants of section 2.3 of WP:MOS, and the arbitrariness of how the wrong original English variant was "established" to begin with. It would be helpful in resolving this issue if the other editors commenting would do so.Centpacrr (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, my attitde is still based on the policy rather than any attempt to claim that the war is more important to any one side. For a start, I do not believe that drawing on that claim is really valid in a case when at least two of the regions involved consider to be existential. As a result I stand by the status quo. However, the decision was arrived at, it was established and, until now, not really challenged that Canadian English, as a variant which allows for both American and British spellings to be used in some cases was suitable for an article which involves American, British and, yes, Canadian interest to a greater or lesser extent. As for your reasons why you consider the war to be peculiarly American, may I suggest that you look at it from another point of view. While you can point to the US flag and national anthem as reasons why this war was so important to the US, Canadians point to the local militia's defence against perceived American imperialism and the resistance to American invasions which ensured the separate existence of a country that eventually became Canada. Until the eventual adoption of the anodyne O Canada as the official national anthem, English Canada's unofficial anthem was The Maple Leaf Forever which draws just as strongly on War of 1812 mythology as The Star Spangled Banner. Toronto, see Battle of York, was the scene of the looting and burning of the provincial parliament buildings and the theft of the Speaker's mace, only returned in the next century, which, in part, was the reason why the Royal Navy burned the public buildings of Washington. It seems to me to be unacceptable to claim that only one side in a war was important and to dismiss the colonists of Upper and Lower Canada and Nova Scotia as irrelevant to the war and its outcome. Dabbler (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dabbler that the page should use the "Canadian" style, which allows both American and British spelling. However I disagree that it is central to Canadian identity. It is central to British Canadian identity, and not to French Canadian or First Nations identity. Canada defines itself today as multicultural with three founding traditions, only one of which looks to this war. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your contention that it is not "central" to the Canadian identity. However, it is more than just of importance to "British Canada". For a start, Quebecois militia also played an important role in the defence of Lower Canada. While it is probably more important to what is left of British Canada, that is a still a large number of people. The war is still considered an important part of the founding history/myth of Canada as a country which is part of the Commonwealth and more importantly separate from the US. It, along with Vimy Ridge, is one of the few historical military events that is still covered in Canadian school history classes. Dabbler (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe 1812 is taught in ENGLISH language schools in Canada, but not in the French language schools. Perhaps this is more an issue between English Canada and French Canada (rather than with the USA). Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In Montreal schools they still learn about Canadian Voltigeurs and folk hero's like Charles de Salaberry and Dominique Ducharme. My opinion is that the war of 1812 is more relevant to Canadians.... This is reflected in the current governments (concervatives)  long celebration of the war that has gained some back lash Conservatives draw fire for War of 1812 spending The current govermant cliams its one of the main defining moments in Canadian history (Prime Minister's Message). The Americans simply dont have as much invested it seems (they dont care as much).  That said I dont care what dialect is used.-- Moxy (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In Canada, only four provinces require a high school history course to graduate. Also in Quebec, (see http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Opinion+High+school+course+teaches+nationalist+ideology+history/7519369/story.html ) it has been argued that nationalist ideology is taught rather than history. The War of 1812 has been relegated to a secondary place in the Quebec curriculum along with World War 1 and World War 2 and other minor historical events. However, the government has certainly been busy commemorating the War of 1812 in both official languages. Dabbler (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Canadian high school system aside, it's pretty clear, as I said in my initial comment, that both Canada and the US have significant national ties to the topic. Quite literally (as Moxy said) Canada has more invested in the topic, probably due to Canada's need to assert a separate national identity from the US. That said, very few people, excepting historians or (In Canada's case) the government, really care or pay attention to the war today in either country. So to say that the war is central to any Canadian conception of national identity is somewhat false. In the US, the Revolutionary War generally makes a more convenient national myth. Only certain aspects of the 1812 war are noticed (like the fiction of Dolly Madison saving the paintings in the burning of the White House), but primarily the three main battles in the US, Baltimore, New Orleans and Plattsburgh. Given the equal national interest in the topic, there seems no reason to change the language, although I don't feel it would really make a difference. Rwenonah (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rwenonah. 1812 is forgotten in USA (and no one recalls Plattsburgh). The war is only rmembered in Ontario, say the recent polls of Canadians. The Am Revolution, however, is as important as ever in the USA. There is even a "tea party" movement (named for the Boston Tea Party) in which activists actually wear costumes from the 1770s to protest 2014 policies. Rjensen (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The two were very different wars, and can't really be compared, but yes. Indeed, the war is mainly forgotten even in Ontario. See here http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/28/war-of-1812-ad-canada_n_1837244.html. Rwenonah (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The version of English used in articles is whatever editors choose to use. Presumably most editors are Canadian.  Possibly most readers are too.  So there is no policy based reason to change it.
 * No one in 1812 spoke UK, Canadian or U.S. English as we understand it today. Websters and the OED had yet to be written and spelling was not standardized.  The word "governor" was frequently spelled "governour" in all three countries.
 * Incidentally the Treaty of Ghent was not signed by George III "on behalf of" the U.K. It was a treaty between the king and the U.S.
 * TFD (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the Treaty was personally "signed" by George III (it wasn't), only that he was the named party representing the United Kingdom which was the actual party against which the United States had declared war by "An Act Declaring War between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United States of America and Their Territories" passed by Congress on June 18, 1812. "His Britannic Majesty" at the time the Treaty was signed was George III but the US never declared war against the King himself. The King and the President Madison as the representatives of their two countries then both appointed Plenipotentiaries to negotiate and execute the Treaty the preamble of which reads:
 * "His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America desirous of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between the two Countries, and of restoring upon principles of perfect reciprocity, Peace, Friendship, and good Understanding between them, have for that purpose appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries, that is to say, His Britannic Majesty on His part has appointed the Right Honourable James Lord Gambier, late Admiral of the White now Admiral of the Red Squadron of His Majesty's Fleet; Henry Goulburn Esquire, a Member of the Imperial Parliament and Under Secretary of State; and William Adams Esquire, Doctor of Civil Laws: And the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, has appointed John Quincy Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell, and Albert Gallatin, Citizens of the United States; who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective Full Powers, have agreed upon the following Articles." Centpacrr (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are misreading it. It says "His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America."  In a republic, sovereignty rests with the people and the government acts on their behalf.  In a monarchy, sovereignty rests with a sovereign who acts on his own behalf.  So when the monarch is at war, it includes all his subjects, not just those who happen to reside in his best known estate.  TFD (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the U.S. should declare war against the U.K. and dependencies rather than the King, when they had earlier "Absolved from any Allegiance to the British Crown." In any case the wording of U.S. declaration of war includes "and Dependencies Thereof", which would include the British North American colonies.  So whether they were part of the war by virtue of being subjects of the Crown or because the U.S. had declared war on them, they were participants.  TFD (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Good God. If there are valid competing varieties of English, then WP:TIES cannot possibly be applied—either to defend CanEng, or to oppose it.  TIES is only for clearest cut of cases, so that New York City doesn't end up in Australian English or Mumbai in American English.  Are we going to argue that the United States Declaration of Independence be written in BrEng because the Founding Fathers used such spellings as "endeavoured" and "neighbouring" (and were British subjects)?  If the article is in CanEng, per the MOS (MOS:RETAIN) it should stay that way unless it can be shown to do harm; having said that, MOS:COMMONALITY should trump any outright Canadianisms ("riding", "chesterfield"), and preference should be given to those spellings that are common between the two varieties (preferring "-ize" even if "-ise" is sometimes considered acceptable in CanEng).  This is not, of course, because CanEng is more appropriate in any way, but only because it is established—the whole point of ENGVAR and RETAIN is to avoid these ridiculous time-draining "discussions". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR the equal ties for the subject between the US, Canada, and the UK, mean that there no reason to change so "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." So leave it as Canadian English. -- PBS (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

not good summary of war and peace
I believe the summary needs to be changed .As numerous battles are mentioned twice such as New Orleans and south west Indian defeats. Whereas other battles if not more important are not mentioned at all such as the battle of Chryslers farm or Stoney creek and fort bowyer.

While Ghent summary is not sufficient as it is .As pressure from British government(worried about Europe)on British diplomats was the primary reason for them to drop their demands to get the war over and done with. While the summary fails to mention American demands made at Ghent such as there demands to change British maritime belligerent rights which was main cause of war and even demands on Canadian territory. However summary is a bit one sided and only stats that Britain asked for demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperialredcoat (talk • contribs) 2014-09-21T08:28:35 Imperialredcoat (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, any change to the summary needs to be packed up by published, reliable sources, of which you have presented none supporting your views on the war. Crysler's Farm and Fort Bowyer were both relatively insignificant in terms of the larger conflict, and definitely don't deserve a place in the lede. Stoney Creek might, but in my opinion the summary is already bloated,a nd we should be considering ways to trim it rather than expand it. Many of the battles were added by another editor without consensus some time ago. Insofar as I know, the US made no claims on Canadian territory or demands to change British maritime regulations (other than impressment, which can hardly be called a "right"). American diplomats were fully aware that their country was risking defeat following the end of the Napoleonic Wars; after 1814, the US no longer expected victory. Britain did, and therefore made demands, which it didn't get after New Orleans and Plattsburgh. Rwenonah (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your last change Imperial, no discussion, no references to back up the change,how did you arrive at the conclusions? What are the list of the historians polled? I'm sure it was a good faith edit but... Tirronan (talk)

Tirronan if you mean the treaty of Ghent which was my last non minor edit. This was a while ago and there was discussion and sources involved and if have deleted them non the less you should revert the American demands back to what they were, as I displayed these sources for the demands made Andrew lambert pg388 and pg. 307 Carl Benn the war of 1812 pg82 Peter snow when Britain burned the white house pg. 232 Henry Adams the war of 1812 Pg328 pg327 Imperialredcoat (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we covered this before, Benn and Lambert are not RS on diplomacy (their research has been on military & naval history--diplomacy is a different field); they spend little attention on it & they garbled the secondary sources. For example, the US delegation did NOT present the demands drawn up in Washington at Ghent, as all the diplomatic historian since 1890 have said (see note 165) Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hickey makes clear that Lambert is a good NAVAL historian but is poor on political and diplomatic topics. Lambert the suffers from a common problem: "a problem common among military historians—a poor grasp of the all-important political and diplomatic background of the military actions they seek to explain." Hickey attacks Lambert's poor grasp of numerous points: "Lambert makes dubious and erroneous claims about the causes of the war." "Lambert also makes sketchy claims about the end and aftermath of the war....Lambert insists that, in the peace negotiations, 'Americans conceded Britain's core war aims, maritime belligerent rights and impressment, at the outset,' and that the Treaty of Ghent 'upheld British maritime rights.' But the treaty did not mention these issues, which remained open questions and the subject of subsequent diplomatic exchanges." "These are but a sampling of Lambert's errors and dubious claims. They suggest a penchant, especially when dealing with American topics, to make airy generalizations and deliver questionable judgments without looking at the evidence.". see Donald R. Hickey, "'The Bully Has Been Disgraced by an Infant'—The Naval War of 1812," Michigan War Studies Review (2014) 2014-097 online Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Lambert stating that Ghent upheld British maritime rights possibly could mean that because US diplomats not challenging this at Ghent( according to hicky) this ,therefore results in them being upheld . Which may answer this question Imperialredcoat (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No--Hickey makes clear that Lambert is all mixed up --and doubly so if Lambert he thinks when a treaty is silent on XYZ that means it upholds the former British position on XYZ. Actually the British had decided not to use impressment against American ships, which was the US demand (Brits did not give up the right to use impressment on BRITISH merchant ships, but that was never at issue in the war). Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the British never de jure gave it up, per the US demand; to the end of the war and onward, they maintained they had the right to search American ships for British deserters (they never actually wanted to impress American sailors). However, this was moot while the two countries were at war, and afterward, with the Napoleonic wars over, the British had no further need for sailors, meaning that the issue never came up again. Rwenonah (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The American goal was not some sort of written promise by Britain but an actual end to impressment. The end actually and permanently happened in 1814 before the treaty was written. Is that success or failure? I'd call it achieving the war goal. Rjensen (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but impressment was always an extreme for Britain - something it only did when it desperately needed sailors. The "permanent" end only happened because Britain no longer needed sailors, meaning it had no need to continue impressment. The fact it was permanent is only due to the fact that Britain wasn't in another life-and-death war over the next 100 years (before maritime rights became generally accepted). If Napoleon had successfully been reinstalled as Emperor of France in the Hundred days, resulting in another ten years of war, Britain would have resumed taking deserters off American ships (possibly with more tact). There is a difference between a war goal is only achieved if events change because of the war, rather than a coincidental end only due to a long period of peace. In other words, American actions didn't change impressment; it was a historical coincidence. Rwenonah (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually Ian Toll states that the British Navy was at pains to make sure no US ship was stopped and no sailors were impressed during the hundred days when the same horrific pressures for sailors existed. While the right of impressment was never given up by the British Navy, in practice, American ships were left strictly alone and stopping and impressing of US ships fact ended. I wanted to address another issue brought up here in this section. If you dig but just a little, there are letters from impressed American sailors to their fathers in the record. British naval captains were not always all that picky about who they impressed so long as they could speak English. Documentation to such also exists. The fact that American accents and dress were virtually identical to Britons also made this more difficult. All this was dependent on the British commander so the actual truth varied widely by warship. That being said it was a rare capture where impressed Americans were not found on British warships. True black and white lines are rare in any war and the issue of impressment was very murky indeed. Nations do what is in their best interest and another war with America made no sense at all at this point in time. Tirronan (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015
In the first section, paragraph 3, sentence 6, where the article is on the topic of Gen. Andrew Jackson and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the information there is inaccurate. It states that The Battle of Horseshoe Bend took place in the Southwest. Horseshoe Bend is in Alabama near the town of Dadeville. Alabama is in the Southeast, not southwest. This needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welsh 16 (talk • contribs) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "Southwest" in this context refers to the southwest of the then United States, which indeed was what is now Alabama. At the time, it was the "Mississippi Territory". --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2015
Cosimomedici (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Regarding President Madison and The Battle of Bladensberg. Source: A New American History, by W.E. Woodward. In the description of the war Woodward creates a portrait of Madison and the "muddled situation" he was involved in prior to the war. This section would benefit from expansion. In addition, the Battle of Bladensberg is poorly characterized. Woodward says that it was called the "Bladensberg Races" fought mainly by miltia who fled "in a senseless panic, every man racing against his comrades on the road to Washington." Woodward also describes the Army, American, as only 7,000 strong commanded by old men from the American Revolution. Finally, there is no mention of the John Henry/Count de Crillon episode that fed into the "war Hawks" desire for war. This episode is essential in understanding the tone of the nation prior to declaring war.

R.Signore14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Cosimomedici (talk)
 * W.E. Woodward Was a popular author in the 1920s, famous for debunking heroes in American history. He never published any serious scholarly work, and historians have not cited him in 75+  years. You need a much more reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 17:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Possible" American interest in annexing British territory
The wording of the opening paragraph is clearly American POV. The American desire to conquer British territory was stated openly and overtly, indeed there is an abundance of evidence for this in the correspondence and statements US politicians at the time.Thorno444444 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that there is anyone here that would argue that the War Hawks wanted to annex Canada. I know that New England was pretty much aghast at any such notion, Finally we had the Madison cabinet openly asking the President just how he intended to give Canada back to the crown? Nor was America the only country trying to grab land. Attempts to grab major territory was on the British side as well. I believe that the article states both.Tirronan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the war hawks did not want to annex Canada. The war hawks wanted to restore American prestige, and they wanted to end the Indian threat in the Midwest. Annexing places like Quebec or Nova Scotia did not make it into their speeches; as Risjord says  "there is evidence that some Southerners actually feared the annexation of Canada" (WMQ 1961 cited in article)-- There were all those Catholics and diehard Loyalists up there who would cause America no end of trouble in the long run.  In terms of expansion, the lands that the Americans wanted to expand into were located in Ohio Indiana Michigan Wisconsin & Minnesota. The Indian allies of the Brits were blocking that by killing the settlers. As for expansion into Ontario, any American could do that easily, and tens of thousands actually did so no annexation was needed.  Here's the asbstract of the newest scholarly article on the subject:
 * "The myth that U.S. expansionism drove the War of 1812 has proven resilient. Histories attributing the war to a U.S. desire to absorb Canada continue to be published despite relative consensus among experts that the primary U.S. objective was the repeal of British maritime restrictions, and even experts often include caveats regarding possible expansionism underlying U.S. motives. This article finally lays this myth to rest. The Madison administration and Congress initiated the War of 1812 because six years of economic sanctions had failed to bring Britain to the negotiating table, and threatening the Royal Navy’s Canadian supply base was their last hope. Expansionism would have made sense given the precedent of the Revolution, British military preoccupation with Napoleon, and the material gains to be had by annexing Canada, but U.S. leaders feared the domestic political consequences of doing so. Notably, what limited expansionism there was focused on sparsely populated western lands rather than the more populous eastern settlements. (Maass, Diplomatic History 2014) Rjensen (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been through this discussion numerous times, and as such, I'd recommend not making unilateral changes to the article without consensus. It's a blatant disregard of the correct procedure for this. That aside, even in this most recent source opposing expansionism, Maas recognizes the existence of a significant body of opinion contrary to his ideas. "Histories attributing the war to a U.S. desire to absorb Canada continue to be published " (emphasis added). That being the case, we need to cite that significant body of scholarly opinion in the article, which we have done, rather than deleting this opinion in favour of a false pretence that one side is specifically correct, as you have done in overturning a lonstanding stable version of the article without consensus. Rwenonah (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maass identifies the mainstream consensus; the other view does get mentioned, but it has not produced a major book or article on expansion in decades. that's why Maass can "finally lay this myth to rest." Rjensen (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maas clearly supports one side of the debate and not the other. Not only that, but since when does one historian's article suffice to decide relative importance or correctness of views. We don't use one creationist's assertion that evolution is wrong as justification to treat evolution as wrong in a wikipedia article. The same is the case here - one scholar < many. Rwenonah (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As you both state, and what I was trying to explain, was that the views in America were complex. I'd still find it hard to believe there were not some pushing for at least some annexation. I would agree that the majority of the War Hawks were after getting Britain to back off on the trade restrictions. Where I differ from some of our Canadian commentators is that a land grab was anywhere near the central issue. There were after all 19 years of growing hostility and most of it made it into official records.
 * Overall, I would agree that annexation was not the central issue, or even close to it. But significant elements in the American political class both supported and pushed for annexation as a goal, including such eminent figures as Richard Mentor Johnson and even, albeit at an earlier time, Thomas Jefferson. It's clear that expansionism played a role in causing the war - the only real dispute can about the degree to which it did so. Rwenonah (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it is a murky picture for sure, part of which is British arming of the Indian Nations and significant anger gets mixed in with annexation. America didn't have any way to impose a conquest than the British had suppressing the American revolution. There was a genuine interest by the British in limiting and interfering with American development. Hell they still had forts on American territory. But, Ultimately, America only had two options to go after the British, and both were taken. Those options were invading the Canadian colonies and a sea denial campaign. Most of the noise and all of the diplomatic actions were centered on maritime issues. I'd never believe there were not factions that wanted to annex but I'd never agree that "land hunger" was a primary goal. Brutally, the lands south of the boarder were far more productive and the Indians a much better target than Canada was going to be. It sure as hell was a deterrent against any future war with America as the Admiralty was convinced they'd lose Canada in a 2nd war. Tirronan (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're speculating, I'd point out that as long as Britain controlled Canada, it could arm the Indians. The only way to end that would be to expel Britain from North America permanently, denying it a secure base from which to arm and support the Indians and impede American expansion. It's fairly irrelevant what was given by the US as the cause of the war, because wars are always presented as a cause worth fighting for, rather than simply territorial aggrandizement. In general, I'd agree, as I said above, that expansions was far from the primary cause of the war. But it certainly was there, and the article should reflect that. Rwenonah (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that historians agree that the Americans wanted to expand into the Midwest – and were blocked from parts of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan etc. by hostile Indians were armed by the British. The "myth" is that the Americans wanted to expand into Canada. The cold Canadian farmlands were not nearly as attractive as the excellent farmlands in Ohio, Indiana etc. With the Americans wanted to do was to stop the Indian raids, and expelling the British would be one good way to do that. What happened is that the British agreed to stop and stop arming the Indians. London gave up its long-term goal of forming a semi-independent Indian state in the American Midwest.  It did that because the Indian alliance had crumbled after the death of Tecumseh, and because the British loss control of Lake Erie and of Western Ontario (as the Duke of Wellington observed when he refused to take command there.)  however-- we still have the myth inside Ontario that Americans wanted to take control of Ontario and strip it of its true British heritage. That myth of Americanization still operates at the high school level in Ontario, but has disappeared from Canadian University textbooks. That myth is not much heard in Québec, Which is strongly opposed to the Myth that Canada is intrinsically British.  Rjensen (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So much original research. Sadly, many historians cited in the article disagree. You referring to American expansion as a unilateral myth propounded by some kind of neo-British imperialist conspiracy didn't make it true, nor is it something I've seen in any sources, most of which acknowledge expansionism played at least a role in causing the war. Expansionism doesn't have to be rational, or based on a logical assessment of the merits of the land in question. As Thomas Jefferson and many other politicians of the era illustrated, expansionism could well have been based on simple revanchism and a desire to expel Britain from North America once and for all. Logically, after all, the US would need to permanently control Canada to permanently ensure that Britain couldn't arm the Indians, otherwise Britain could continue to arm them from the secure territorial base Canada represented. Xenophobia could also have played a role - the US at the time was highly anti-Catholic, and might have wanted to strip the fertile farmlands of the St. Lawrence Valley away from a bunch of "benighted foreigners". But forgive me for responding to your original research with my own, since this entire conversation is reviving a seemingly resolved discussion from six months ago. Please don't beat a dead horse. Rwenonah (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Ron, he is right to this day most Americans don't seen Canadian farm lands are very desirable. It is safe to say that all both participants had lots of territorial ambitions. Actually the mineral resources of Canada would be of more interest today then back then. The only problem is that you'd have to convince the America public that invading Canada is OK. Needless to say it is just about as likely as convincing Canada to declare war on the US... lets give this a long break.Tirronan (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Tirronan, Long time no see. I actually find some of Rwenonah's comments to be entertaining so please don't discourage him. Reading claims of "neo-British imperialist conspiracy," "revanchism," and "benighted foreigners" is really fun. You should just sit back and enjoy it.Dwalrus (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's keep things civil, Dwalrus. And quite frankly, the sources speak for themselves, no matter how much out-of-context quoting or ad hominem attacks you use. Rwenonah (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that you should keep this civil. Laughing at some of the things you say is not an ad hominem attack. Relax. Dwalrus (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you understand the concept of ad hominem? You're attacking my character or credibility rather than the content of what I say. It's classic ad hominem, and a classic tactic for those who recognize they're incapable of winning an argument based on facts (or in this case, sources). There are sources that say expansionism was a cause, including many that say it was the primary cause. If you care to present something that somehow invalidates numerous published reliable sources, you're welcome to do so. If not, stop beating a dead horse, and as Tirronan recommends, let the stable version of the article stand. Rwenonah (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No as of 2015 there are no reliable secondary sources that say American expansion into Canada was a major cause of the war. The text says Maass argued in 2015 that the expansionist theme is a myth that goes against the "relative consensus among experts that the primary U.S. objective was the repeal of British maritime restrictions". Of course we still have Canadians (from Ontario) who firmly believe in an Ontario myth that is rejected by scholars in Canada; it is rejected in Quebec because it glorifies the British role. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are quite a few. I'm almost sorry about that, because you seem unable to fit it into this very specific OR worldview about myths you keep repeating. You (or, somewhat more relevantly, Maas) calling something a myth doesn't make it a myth. Consider the idea that there are

nuances to history, rather than one very specific and unchanging truth that only you and historians you choose know about, and this will all be much easier. Rwenonah (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about. What I'm laughing at is specifically the quotes that I gave. They're not out of context since anyone can easily read them just a few paragraphs above. I'm not arguing about whether or not you believe that expansionism was a factor in the war. If you have some historians who actually claim there is a "neo-British imperialist conspiracy" then give us the source. Do you have any historians who claim it was about "wanting to strip the fertile farmlands of the St. Lawrence Valley away from a bunch of 'benighted foreigners'"? If you have sources for these claims then give them. If you don't then perhaps you will begin to understand why I laughed at your comments. Dwalrus (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Rjensen's the one who likes to talk about Canadian high school teachers conspiring to spread incorrect Anglocentric views. I too wonder where his sources for that claim are, since he's never presented any, and I'm glad you also recognize that claim as OR. The fact you attributed that view to me shows that not only did you take the quote out of context, you didn't even understand the sentence it came from. Walter Nugent is the main historian I know who attributes the war to a desire for American control of the St. Lawrence Valley to produce and sell grain, in his Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansionism. This was already discussed, so look at the archives if you like. The foreigners bit was entirely my speculation that widespread anti-Catholicism might have played a role, and I identified it as such, so you seemingly again failed to read and understand what I wrote. Rwenonah (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Canadian historical groups several times brought me to Canada to discuss the war of 1812 with high school teachers. I found the experience fascinating and then checked the Canadian high school and university textbooks. The textbooks do not carry the myth of American expansion; It appears to be a popular urban legend  propagated person-to-person rather than through scholarly books or textbooks.  I've known Walter Nugent for 35 years, and just today reread the pages of his book that's in question. He says that the expansion motive was a minor factor and was not the immediate cause of the war. (Habits of Empire p 73). I think the main support for the myth are statements by Thomas Jefferson at the time-- but Jefferson was in retirement and out of power and was not consulted by the people in power; he was expressing his private opinions, based on his strong fear of the British threat to American republicanism. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your personal knowledge of Canadian urban legends might be amusing at parties, but it's not really relevant here. Present a source supporting your views or stop presenting them as truth. Likewise, your personal knowledge of Walter Nugent isn't a published, reliable source. To quote Nugent's book, "Expansion was not the only American objective, nor even the immediate one, but it was an objective." or "Whether the Americans would then [after capturing it] give back Canada ... seems extremely unlikely." I can quote many more statements explicitly supportive of annexation in the book if necessary. Many American congressmen (Porter, Calhoun and Richard Mentor Johnson come to mind) who were sitting in 1812 and voted in favour of war, explicitly supported and recommended annexation. Rwenonah (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources have already been presented to show that the objective of the war was not to annex Canada. If you are interested in how and why Tories re-wrote history, see The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850 The perceived threat was used to justify elitism and curtailment of freedoms as the necessary to protect the public. TFD (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources have likewise already been presented to show that an objective of the war was to annex Canada. (FYI, the phrase "the objective" is misleading; something can be a cause of the to the war without being the sole,exclusive objective). I'd say the threat was perceived as pretty real, given that the British built a system of canals and shifted the area's capital in response to it, and this after the Canadas got responsible government and the Family Compact lost its control. Rwenonah (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be that the threat was perceived as real, that does not mean it was real. In fact both sides prepared for invasion as late as the 1920s, and since 9/11 the U.S. navy prepared for a Canadian invasion across the Great Lakes.  There was however a real threat that Canadians would choose to join the U.S., which British policy aimed to curtail.  TFD (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD, Thanks for posting about this, The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850. Looks like an interesting book. Dwalrus (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not true that " Walter Nugent is the main historian I know who attributes the war to a desire for American control of the St. Lawrence Valley to produce and sell grain." First of all it is a misquotation: he refers to some businessmen who wanted to control the trade on the Great Lakes. He mentions that is a minor factor, and never says it was a main cause of the war. The main problem here is that believers in the Ontario myth are locked into a story that they firmly believe, and will use any snippets of a half sentence from here or there to try to validate. When historians say the consensus is against them, they ignore the historians. I see this as primarily a matter of internal Canadian cultural conflicts-- including heavy doses of anti-Americanism, British-Canadian anger at the French-Canadians; and a refusal of the Ontario loyalists to include the First Nations as part of Canada. (Thus they insist that the Canada won the war, ignoring the heavy losses suffered by the First Nation Canadians). Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, Nugent explicitly identifies that as the cause. To quote: "Why was annexation popular? ... The attraction of the land across the border in Canada was not so much to provide farms for settlers, but to produce and profitably sell grain, - either down an American-controlled St. Lawrence or to New York city." That's not a half sentence, and it explicitly supports annexation as a cause of the war. Nugent identifies expansionism as, in his opinion, a valid, serious cause of the war.


 * Secondly, what you see this as is irrelevant. Historians' views are what matters here, and a significant number of sources do support annexation as a cause of the war. That fact cannot be avoided, no matter how much you try. You've reiterated your personal views about how Canadians view the war a lot over the course of these discussions; they're not only useless and a distraction from actual improvement of the article, they're flat out wrong. I'm not sure how much you know about First Nations Canadians (judging by what you said above, little), but they came out of the war fairly well. The Six Nations got a large reservation in recognition of their contributions, while the Sioux and the Ojibwe were largely left alone for another two decades until they signed the "numbered treaties". American Indians, by contrast, (e.g. the Shawnee, Creek, or Cherokee) were abandoned at the negotiations and promptly exterminated, expelled from their lands, and subjected to the Indian Removal era. The major Indian losers were, and very much are, American tribes. If you're going to make claims based on your own personal views, please try to make sure that those views have an adequate basis in fact.


 * I don't really see how "internal Canadian conflicts" are relevant to this discussion. No one is asserting that Canada won the war or that the First Nations aren't part of Canada, and I've never seen either of those assertions made on this page (Britain winning the war is another matter). This looks uncomfortably like a WP:STRAWMAN. Rwenonah (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not you are reading the text correctly, there are problems with using this source. First, weight requires us to present opinions in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. That means you need to present a source saying that the view is generally recognized in the literature. Also, scholarly sources are preferred and despite the credentials of the author, it is written for a general audience. Nugent, whose expertise is in the "American West, US Gilded Age/Progressive Era, comparative immigration", expands his studies to show that the U.S. is and always has been imperialist. Note that he never identifies the border businessmen who wanted annexation or provide any sources for the claim. How feasible was it to export wheat overland from Upper Canada to New York City?

The best approach to any article is to identify the best, most recent and most relevant sources and use them identify the weight assigned to different opinions and for facts. You should not begin by deciding what should be in an article, then search for sources in support.

TFD (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nugent is a published, respected historian expert in his field. It seems to me that you and other editors have decided that expansion was not, and could not have been, a cause of the war, allowing no room in that view for historical nuance, and proceeded to systematically reject any source that conflicts with that view, regardless of how valid or reliable it is. If I may rephrase your own comment above, you should not begin by deciding what cannot be in an article, then reject any sources in contradiction. By the time you've begun to quibble about whether an author has identified every group mentioned in a long and general history by individual names, you're clearly searching for reasons (rather weak ones at that) to reject the source.


 * To address your other comments, it wasn't feasible to transport wheat from Upper Canada to New York, hence the need for an "American-controlled St. Lawrence" that Nugent identifies and that I mention directly above. Do you even read the quotations from the sources in question? Rwenonah (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nugent denies that expansionism was a main cause of the war. As for the water traffic, both sides wanted exclusive control. Result was to share it. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things. Firstly, no, he doesn't, as my numerous quotes from his book above show. Please stop making such obviously wrong claims. Secondly, "American-controlled" is not "sharing", as a basic understanding of English should convey. Nugent writes that the attraction of Canadian land and the reason annexations as a popular idea was because the land could produce grain that could be sold down an America-controlled St. lawrence to New York. Not a whole lot of sharing involved. Rwenonah (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nugent refers to Peter B. Porter who was both a War Hawk and a businessman from Black Rock, NY. He points out that Porter wanted to build a canal connecting Oswego, NY to the Hudson River, thus bypassing the St. Lawrence River. Porter despite being a War Hawk was opposed to the annexation of Lower Canada (Quebec), but did want Upper Canada. His references to Porter are on page 82 and endnote 9 on page 325. Dwalrus (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What this original thread was about was how some areas of Canada still thought that the NW territory should have been theirs. If they have to take Detroit, I personally might consider it. (joking here.) Somewhere along the line this got personal. I'm asking everyone to stop this now. Ronald has come a very long way as an editor and I've personally observed him RV'ing edits that were out of the historiography in a fair and even manner. People change and evolve and Ronald is worthy of the respect of good spirited Editor. Yeah if you had asked me this question 3 years ago I wouldn't have believed it myself. Still, Ronald is a good editor here and I am standing by that. Let us agree that this has gotten way off track and way to personal and leave this thread.Tirronan (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of published respected historian experts. You need a source to show that any attention has been paid to his views on the war of 1812. I cannot find any. Nugent btw wrote an article that was published in the academic press called "The American Habit of Empire, and the Cases of Polk and Bush." (2007) And yes I did better than read your quotations, I read the source. It would not be feasible to transport wheat by ship without taking control of the St. Lawrence and possibly Halifax too. The alternative canal route was not yet available. I originally missed the Porter plan, but it seems far-fetched to suggest that they would annex Upper Canada years before a canal was built. Was it feasible to occupy the province for years and deny them an export market? TFD (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well then, it seems like every source you've presented, and indeed every source on the page, is invalid and unusable, since I've never seen such ancillary sources for any of them. It seems a lot of rewriting will have to occur as so many newly unreliable sources are deleted.


 * To address the less ridiculous part of your comment, the necessity of controlling the St. Lawrence to export wheat would presumably create the motivation to annex more land, including Lower Canada and Nova Scotia. Porter, opposed to the annexation of Lower Canada, proposed a canal instead. Regardless, all of this discussion recognizes the idea that significant elements, including powerful businessmen and Congressmen, had serious motivation to annex Canada and had thought and planned seriously for such an outcome. That would make it a cause of the war. Rwenonah (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As for Congressman Porter, Rwenonah completely misreads what happened. Porter radically changed positions. In December 1811 he proposed the war resolution (it was debated but not passed). In those speeches he did NOT advocate annexation (says Stagg p 402). Five months later in April 1812 he strongly opposed any war, warning the Secretary of War that it would be a disaster for the Americans.  He had left Congress before war was declared in June. (Stagg "Between Black Rock and a Hard Place: Peter B. Porter's Plan for an American Invasion of Canada in 1812" Journal of the Early Republic 1999 p 390).  Stagg notes that since 1960s, the expansionist motivation has been "largely rejected" by historians, who instead emphasize maritime issues/impressment and honor. [Stagg p 402n] Rjensen (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't misread anything. Porter radically changed positions, true, but from a position of enthusiastic support for annexation including proposing a resolution that "the Government of the United States should be extended to Canada". He spent a considerable amount of time advocating annexation and invasion before this occurred. Many of his compatriots, for example Richard Mentor Johnston, did not radically change their positions and continued to espouse annexation. As Alan Taylor says in his The Civil War of 1812, "Many Republican Congressmen longed to oust Britain from the continent and to annex Canada." That sounds like something that contributed to the outbreak of war - a cause. Rwenonah (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015
Change the 'American Indian' to 'Native American'. Politically correct classification.

24.151.11.37 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done. Both are perfectly acceptable and Indian is the more used term historically. Calidum T&#124;C 23:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Calidum, I suggest a link in the text, it has probably now reached the point that some English speakers have never heard this usage.Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already linked in the lead sentence. Calidum T&#124;C 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

stop using the word Indian, it is both offensive and incorrect in more then one way. Indians are from India, any use of that word referring to the aboriginals of NA is ignorant and embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.128.135 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's neither, but nice try. Calidum T&#124;C 00:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The term "Native American" refers to Native Americans in the United States, which describes few of the aboriginals.  Also, it would be unlikely to be understood by readers outside the U.S.  Notice that various aboriginal organizations, such as the American Indian Movement, continue to use the term.  TFD (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015
In the section: U.S. political conflict Main articles: Federalist Party and Opposition to the War of 1812 Change "negatavism" to "negativism."

Ohayrt (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on War of 1812. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310154442/http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/index.php?p=19 to http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/index.php?p=19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Tecumseh
I'm just mindblown that these two wars (1812 and Tecumseh War) are mixed up in this article to create an illusion of two fronts. From Tecumseh Confederacy: "In late 1808 the British in Canada approached him to form an alliance, but he refused." They were not even allies. That's like calling Al Qaeda a US ally because they're fighting alongside each other in Syria. US defeated Tecumseh's troops who used spears and loincloth, yes. The British left Tecumseh to die. US gained land, but NOT from the British NOR from Canada. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the RS say Tecumseh was a critical ally of the British in 1812-13. 1) Paul Finkelman, ‎James A. Percoco - 2009 says: ‎"Tecumseh and his war band joined the British against the United States in the War of 1812." 2) Sharon Malinowski - 1998 "A British ally during the War of 1812, Tecumseh was made a brigadier general in command of all Indian forces." 3) Charles Esdaile - 2009 -"they found a powerful ally in the great Indian leader, Tecumseh. Of mixed Shawnee and Creek backgrounds, Tecumseh hated white America and believed the Indians faced a choice of either fighting or being overwhelmed"; 4) Robert Utley, ‎Wilcomb E. Washburn - 1985 - ‎"But Tecumseh could no longer wreak his vengeance, as he had wished, at the head of a host of unified tribes. He needed an ally. And so, reluctantly, he turned to the Canadian garrisons where the British were getting ready for their second war against the Americans." 5) Michael Lee Lanning - 2005 "In addition to losing the battle, the British lost Tecumseh, their most important Native American ally, who was mortally wounded."; 6) Leslie Monkman - 1981 - ‎"Only after his failure to reclaim the lands of the west for his people does Tecumseh ally himself with Brock." 7) Carol Cartaino - 2010 writes: "Finding Prophetstown reduced to ashes upon his return, Tecumseh vowed to go to Canada and ally with the British. Tecumseh rallied his Indian allies to join the British forces in the siege of Detroit. Tecumseh and four hundred of his warriors..."; 8) Gordon M. Sayre - 2006 says: "But with Tecumseh, we for the first time find an Indian leader and his warriors fighting with one colonial power against another." 9) On the image of Tecumseh in Canadian thought see  Rjensen (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Pro-US bias
To finish, I will just say that that this is an english encyclopedia does not mean it should have a pro-US bias. Green547 (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This article simply refuses to admit that the US basically lost the war and was successfully and decisively repulsed. The infobox alone contains inaccuracies. "Military stalemate"? No, that is not the correct terminology. Rather like "successful defense of Canadian territory". The lede and main body of the article continue the innacuracy, never explicitly stating the facts. The US lost the war; status quo ante bellum when you are the attacker means you lost, expending lives and resources for nothing. You did not accomplish your objective while the enemy did accomplish his objective (defend successfully). Very simple logic.
 * Also, rather than state the real reason for the US attempted invasion (desperate greed for territorial gain), a whole section is devoted to propagating minor issues that are really just excuses and (admittedly lousy) justifications for the US's unexplicable caper. There is a lengthy discussion above about one aspect of this however nothing has been yet changed.
 * Before we debate this, let's find out from Green547 if he considers himself to be neutral on this issue or not? Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And let's point him to some not so light reading on the topic.  Calidum   02:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Green547, your assumption is that the U.S. objective was territorial gain, yet that was not a stated objective, nor do historians see it as one.  TFD (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "... nor do many historians see it as one". Some still do but it certainly was not the only objective. Dabbler (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To answer Rjensen's question, no, I am not neutral and neither is anybody else. It is a fallacy to assume that some people are "neutral" and some are not.
 * Rather than go into a lengthy discussion about who won the war, how about a little tangible improvement on the article. For instance, replacing "military stalemate" which is totally innacurate to "successful British/Canadian defense". Also tightening up the lede a little (it's 6 large paragraphs) with more to-the-point info. I am not saying territorial gain was the only objective, but it was definitely the main one (and it WAS stated). Green547 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because "successful British/Canadian defense" is false. American forces took control of Lake Erie in 1813 and thereby took control of what is now south-western Ontario. In terms of the three main components of Canadian history – the British, the French, and the First Nations, the Americans destroyed the military power of the third group, and in the process destroyed British plans to create a satellite Indian state in Ohio-Indiana-Michigan-Illinois-Wisconsin. (the British made that satellite a main war goal at Ghent and failed.) Ending the military threat of the Indians to the settlement of the American Midwest was a main war goal and the Americans achieved it. They also achieved the even more important goal of maintaining American honor and independence in the face of British humiliations such as impressment. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Successful" British/Canadian defense only makes sense if the objective was annexation of Canada. Otherwise, the Americans successfully defended themselves after the burning of Washington and the attempted invasion of New Orleans.  TFD (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To answer Rjensen's points here is a piecemeal analysis:
 * "American forces took control of Lake Erie in 1813 and thereby took control of what is now south-western Ontario." Really? Then the end result is not status quo ante bellum. The veracity of that claim is something else entirely...are you telling me that the US controls or controlled part of Ontario? Wow! I didn't know that before. I thought that the US border was, in fact, Lake Erie and that US and Canada each control part of the lake. So I guess the article on Lake Erie is wrong as well?
 * ...??? The borders changed during the war and went back to what they were before the war started.  That is what status quo ante bellum means. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point here is that this is not a valid argument for Rjensen to use. The end result is that the US did not expand its border one iota, thus this was not an accomplished objective as he is implying. Green547 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "In terms of the three main components of Canadian history – the British, the French, and the First Nations, the Americans destroyed the military power of the third group, and in the process destroyed British plans to create a satellite Indian state in Ohio-Indiana-Michigan-Illinois-Wisconsin. (the British made that satellite a main war goal at Ghent and failed.) Ending the military threat of the Indians to the settlement of the American Midwest was a main war goal and the Americans achieved it." OK, the British did fall short of their objectives there, but the Americans would have squished out the First Nations anyway - no need to attack Canada. The suspicion that the British were helping Tecumseh is just exactly that - only a suspicion. The First Nations were simply defending themselves from the American's invasion, and the Canadians DID defend their territory successfully.
 * "They also achieved the even more important goal of maintaining American honor and independence in the face of British humiliations such as impressment." Wonder how you kin get even with someone when you can't even invade their lowly colonies...
 * this is actualy dealt with in the article, unless it has changed since I last read it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer TFD's point, the (main) objective WAS annexation of Canada. In fact Thomas Jefferson, US president, said, "The acquisition of Canada...will be a mere matter of marching.[emphasis added]" I do not totally understand your last sentence although let it be said that both annexation and westward expansion were both basically invasions for territorial gain. Green547 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jefferson was no longer president, he was in retirement and wrote numerous letters telling President Madison what to do; Madison ignored them. Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The Americans decided to attack Canada, since it was an easier target than the Royal Navy. But the acquisition of Canada was not an objective but a strategy.  Canada would be held until U.S. demands were met.  And in fact the "Canadians" (English-speaking people in the Canadas were not called that at the time) were mostly neutral in the conflict.  TFD (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Residents of Upper Canada were not called Canadians twenty years after the formation of the province? What were they called, then? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They would be referred to by whatever identity they had before coming to Upper Canada. Their nationality, unless they were still U.S. citizens or other aliens, was British.  Only French-speaking people were called Canadians.  TFD (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm saying your wrong, but do you have a citation for that? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

See for example an explanation on p. xviii of a book about Prevost. I have not seen the use of the term Canadian used to refer to the citizens (or whatever one would call them) of Canada in contemporaneous writing, except to refer to French Canadians. TFD (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not saying Jefferson was president at the time but rather that the US main aim was annexation of Canada. I find TFD's claim very questionable; US wanted Canada because some people thought the whole continent should belong to the US. The resistance was from the First Nations as well as English and French militiamen (the latter were called Canadiens), in additon to the regular British redcoats. Now can we get back to the original topic. I propose something like
 * Successful defense of British territory
 * Status quo ante bellum
 * Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy (enabling American westward expansion)

Any objections? Green547 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Lots, do you honestly think that this has not been discussed before? Any idea how many times we have had to entertain "Oh it was all about Canada!" followed by allusions to "filthy American land grubbers." The war was not all about Canada period and end of discussion. We'd have to ignore NINETEEN YEARS OF ESCALATING TRADE WAR TENSION. The article is centered on the the historiography as outlined by the prominent historians. The war ended with the war mired on every front. Further you leave out how all British land grab attempts failed and further that stated goal of limiting American expansion by the British failed miserably. Lastly, Canada to the effect that it was invaded at all was because it was a British colony and nothing more. If this war had been truly between the US and Canada then we wouldn't have had much of a war would we? I really resent trying to set up Canada like we had invaded a sovereign country. This was a American/British war.Tirronan (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I Agree with Tirronan--well said! Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what this looks like? It's technically called a straw-man logical fallacy. You're making it appear as if I was arguing for all that - NOT true. Just read my comments. If you'll carefully read my proposal above, you'll see that I wrote British territory. You're furthermore adopting the WP:OWN attitude. Any rational, coherent objections? Green547 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The other editors are complaining that you are getting your history mixed up. You need to specify exactly what reliable sources you're actually using. Furthermore the British did NOT successfully defend the critical territory of southwestern Ontario-- they loss control of Lake Erie and that region in 1813 in the decisive battles of Lake Erie and the battle of the Thames. The long-term effect was to destroy their plans to set up an Indian state in the Midwest. In 1814 high command asked Wellington to assume command and he refused, saying that the war was drawn as long as the Americans controlled that area. Rjensen (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the infobox Result has no citations. I am simply proposing a better version in which what you're pointing out is recognized (e.g., defeat of the Indian state enabling expansion), but also more accurate, less biased info (the actual British property line, so to speak, stayed the same). In my proposed version the use of status quo ante bellum makes sense; the current use of "military stalemate" is false since the action could have easily been continued. Which leads us to the fact that the British also invaded US territory during the war, so that point is pretty obsolete. Green547 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * what is your problem with "military stalemate"? at war's end Both sides had a slice of enemy territory, which was all returned per the treaty. ( the US kept some Spanish territory). Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with military stalemate is that that wasn't the case. Stalemate means a deadlock, an impasse. That was definitely not the case when the Treaty was signed. The warring nations agreed to a treaty because neither wanted to continue the war (the US was not achieving its aim of conquering Canada and was being conquered itself), not because the opposing forces were dug down in trenches and an offensive would decimate the attacking army. This was the case in WWI, however not in the War of 1812. It seems to me that the use of "military stalemate" here is nothing more than a cover-up for pro US bias. Green547 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * you need to read some books about 1812. try the leading British military historian: Jeremy Black. The War of 1812 in the Age of Napoleon pp 215-6: (2012) "Capable American tactical and operational performance... Led not to disaster, but to stalemate. This was an impressive result against the world's leading military power." Rjensen (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting that a military stalemate is a successful defense for the weaker or defending side, and that seems to be the context he is using. The problem is that "military stalemate" can also mean other things, and my view is that it's being used here to cover up real facts. Green547 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee, that is funny the British themselves considered that no real progress was made being made in the war. You are simply repeating old arguments again. The article isn't going to change through trolling. I have seen nothing to change the results box.Tirronan (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Assesment:
 * Strawman/red herring logical fallacy
 * Ad hominem logical fallacy
 * WP:OWN obviously
 * Answering legitimate arguments with "I will not let trolls change the result box" WP:DR
 * Green547 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the war had ended after Queenston Heights, your argument might have some merit, since the war would have been a defensive victory for Britain and offensive defeat for the US; but Britain launched counteroffensives meant to gain it control over the Mississippi and northern New York, both of which failed. This changed the war's character from a defensive war by Britain to an attempt to fulfill offensive objectives. On balance, the inability of either side to successfully invade or hold much of the other's territory or compel the other side to make peace, despite efforts to do so, make it a stalemate. Rwenonah (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That the war had a defensive character for the British does not mean Britain could not launch counterattacks. See counterattack to prove my point; counterattacks are of a defensive nature. Green547 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

An offensive in a theatre of war 2000 km away from the one where Britain was attacked is not a counterattack. Nor is one 500 km away. Counterattacks are generally tactical, not strategic, in nature. Rwenonah (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That type of argument is relative. A war is a war and it was generally defensive for the British. A possible scenario is that the British wanted to invade as a diversion. Green547 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Now can we get somewhere? So far there has been no effective argumentation on the side of those who want "military stalemate" at the expense of accuracy. There are definitely no reasons (apart from pro-US bias) to retain the current version and it is not even sourced; plenty of editors have disagreed with the way it is being presented as shown by talk archives and the "who won?" subpage. Green547 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Stalemate - a situation in which further progress by opposing or competing parties seems impossible." This was the state of affairs at the end of the war; both sides' offensives had failed, both held some marginal territory taken from the other, and both recognized that continuing to fight would be far more damaging than signing peace. No less an authority than the Duke of Wellington (who I'm hopeful but not certain you won't accuse of pro-US bias) said that further progress against the Americans was unlikely. "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 cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession 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."


 * To produce a few of the many sources calling it a stalemate: Alan Taylor in The Civil War of 1812 uses the characterization (pg. 458), The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 likewise does so (pg. 410), as does Hickey in The War of 1812 (pg. 3). There are many more. Rwenonah (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Green547 wants to get some results beyond stalemate: about "Defeat" for the British military goals in New York and Louisiana and her plan for an Indian state. Let's hear Green547 provide his analysis of the last major campaign of the war: New Orleans. Does he think the British were serious about it or just fooling around or what? then we can turn to the next-to-last campaign in upstate New York in 1814, under Prevost. Was that a British success, or were they just fooling around? Is Prevost his hero? as for the First Nations, perhaps Green547 does not really consider them true Canadians, and so their disaster does not count. Rjensen (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much you understand about First Nations (evidently little), but that's a Canadian term for its native population, and the tribes that fought on the British side were overwhelmingly ones from the modern-day US and from within US claims at the time. This was not coincidental; Britain's relations with First Nations were much better than the swiftly expanding United States' relations with them. Canadian First Nations (i.e. the Six Nations, Ojibwe and some of the Sioux) did fairly well out of the war; they retained their preexisting privileges, including self-government, and weren't seriously interfered with for decades to come. The American Indians, who provided the impetus for Indian assistance to the British, were utterly screwed over after the war. They lost their land, they were subjected to Indian removal, and many continued to fight increasingly desperate rebellions for decades. So you're quite right to say that the First Nations who suffered a disaster weren't "true Canadians", in that they were and are tribes from the US.


 * That said, Tecumseh's defeat at the Thams by no means constituted a disaster in territorial terms- the British/Indians still controlled most of the territory that made up the proposed Indian state (Wisconsin, most of Michigan, Illinois, per the Concise Historical Atlas of Canada, plate 38) at war's end, and could communicate with it via Michilimackinac. The British abandoned the demand because it was simply not worth fighting to preserve in London's eyes. Please, get your facts straight. Rwenonah (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The First Nations had been promised the Midwest and failed. so Tecumseh et al they wound up in the US and are Americans and are not First Nations. That's called losing. For Canadian perspective let's look at the Oxford companion to Canadian history (2004) p 650: "native people faced the greatest losses – that of their great leader, and later of their rights as the broken confederation was forced to sign treaties and give up land for American expansionism." Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet, strangely, they remained in control of the territory of their proposed state through the whole war and even had all of their territory "restored" to them by the treaty of Ghent. The loss of this territory happened after the British withdrawal and the war's end when the US began aggressively expelling them from their territory. So yes, they lost - but no, it didn't happen in the war of 1812; it happened after, when the US failed to respect the treaty and Britain declined to incite another confrontation by trying to enforce it. Rwenonah (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. The Americans had military control of the entire Midwest after 1815. Indians had a substantial presence only in Wisconsin (1815-1840s) and northern parts of Michigan. However the U.S. Army was in military control with a series of forts built 1815-1819. There was (almost) no military action apart from the Black Hawk war of 1832 (when Black Hawk re-entered the region and was defeated). See R.C. Buley, the old Northwest: Pioneer. 1815-1840  (1950) (Pulitzer Prize winner) vol 1 pp 109-17, vol 2 pp57-87- Those Indians who do not like it could move north to Canada. Rjensen (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite right - I never disagreed with any of that and it contradicts nothing I said above. After the British withdrawal from Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois (most of which they and their Indian allies held through the whole war), the Americans proceeded to aggressively expand onto the much weakened Indians' territory, expelling them to the West, despite the fact this violated the Ghent terms. The British presumably didn't consider it worth inciting another crisis to save their Indian allies. But again, the loss didn't happen during the war - it happened after, when the Americans failed to respect the treaty and the weakened and now disunited Indians, without their British suppliers, were unable to resist. Rwenonah (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, no attempt to present the reason for a stalemate is going to dissuade Green547. He is not going to take anything but US defeat regardless of the information and its vetting. Wellington and the PM were both thoroughly convinced that the war could not be won. Eight years of fighting America in the revolutionary war had produced nothing. American was about twice as powerful by 1812. Taxes would have to be raised by internal taxation and America was not going to concede territory. There wasn't a way to force a victory. The instructions from the PM to Ghent and Wellington's own advice tell as much. Now can we end this stupid argument?Tirronan (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is a straw man. Green547 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The term is Straw Man and I'm done with the conversation and the trolling.Tirronan (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I see no trolls here. Please adhere to WP:DR and WP:CIVIL. Green547 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus depends on legitimate concerns and effective argumentation. My legitimate concerns are the following: Green547 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This article shows a pro-US bias by concealing the main American objective which was annexation. A long section is devoted to supposed "causes" without recognizing the main cause. Indeed, the whole article including the lead is highly pro-US, particularly in justifications and concealing failed US objectives. Please consider the quote from Thomas Jefferson as well as other evidence.
 * The infobox Results has no citations and is wrong due to the use of "military stalemate". I am not saying we should use US defeat but I have already proposed a better version which recognizes that Britain successfully defended possibly by forcing a stalemate.
 * The annexation as prewar goal is a myth widely held by Canadians (in Ontario anyway). They say this without studying American documents. Once the war started (as Stagg has shown), Madison's tactical goal was to seize much of Canada as a temporary bargaining chip. Jefferson was not a decision maker in 1809-12. The "chip" worked as Wellington noted; the US controlled sw Ontario & gave it back at Ghent. Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The chip didn't work, as evidenced by the fact that the British never agreed to any of the maritime concessions and the fact that the British held more American land at Ghent (thus their desire for the uti posseditis in the treaty) than the Americans held British land. Again, your love of saying that annexation is a popular myth has been amply proven false by the myriad professional and largely American historians who have been shown to disagree with you on this page, including Stagg, so I don't feel the need to repeat them here. Jefferson's annexationist policies were advocated by high-profile voting Congressmen, and figures such as Henry Clay and James Monroe expected to retain Upper Canada in the event of a victory. Rwenonah (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the chip worked: Wellington said so himself. The annexation myth is about the causation of the war. Actually the British intended to indirectly controlling American Midwest (via Indian state), so that's annexation. And of course the chip ended any possibility of of Indian buffer state.   As for the maritime issues of 1812, with France out of the picture the issues were no longer relevant. The British never again impressed any American sailors or seized American ships. Most important, the British now treated the Americans as an independent nation.  There's an interesting discussion of the historians in   Rjensen (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reluctance to recognize the evidence & arguments (including, but not limited to, the quote; and I am not saying Jefferson was a decision maker) that show that annexation was a primary objective is puzzling & irrational. The "bargaining chip" was not the reason Britain stopped impressment, the buffer state, OR "honor and independence". Interestingly, Britain also invaded the US during the war. Also there are historians who see annexation as an objective. So your response to my concerns is not satisfactory. Green547 (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Historians in recent decades mostly reject the idea that annexation was the primary goal before the war--so it could not have been the cause. MUCH more important was control of Ohio-Indiana-Michigan-Illinois.  Also there are historians... I think you have some Canadians in mind who  never did research in US records. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, they don't, definitely not to the overwhelming degree you seem to imagine. Most of the expansionist theory's advocates (Taylor, Nugent, etc.) cited here are American, so your contemptuous comments about Canadian scholarship are evidently ignorant of the historiography. Again, Britain's demand for the uti posseditis at Ghent shows that Britain would have been happy to let each side retain the territories they held at war's end; the territory the Americans held had to be used to bargain back territory they'd lost, which definitely wasn't the bargaining chip plan Stagg describes. They weren't bargained for maritime concessions - Britain's lack of further infringement on American maritime sovereignty was most likely to avoid irritating a nation that had shown a lot of military power and willingness to use it in the war, not a concession for the return of land. Finally, when numerous political figures advocate for war in order to gain land, and decision makers expect territorial gains from a war ... that logically makes territorial gain a cause. Rwenonah (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have Nugent wrong. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly his books, notably Habits of Empire, seem to differ. Rwenonah (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * quote Nugent for us. Taylor says that in the early 20th century some historians emphasize the goal of conquering Canada. He goes on: "but subsequent historians discounted the strength of Western interests and of the drive to seize Canada. 'The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reasoning reason for starting it,' Reginald Horsman claims....Madison and the Republican Congress fought on, citing impressed sailors and attacking Indians as enduring grievances." > Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly we seem to go through this every couple of months, where you demand Nugent quotes and I quote him; the most recent sessions can easily be found in the archives. In future, just try to remember. Nugent says "The American yearning to absorb Canada was longstanding. In 1811-1812 it became part of a grand strategy ... Why was annexation popular? Land hunger was part of it ... A critical mass of pro_American infiltrators did not exist, which was one reason why the annexation failed ... If the invasion worked, it would gratify long-held dreams of driving Britain out of North America and making it all American." There's plenty more. Taylor does support annexation: "Many Republican Congressmen longed to oust the British from the continent and to annex Canada ... Should the conquest prove easy ... many Republicans (including Monroe and Clay) expected to keep at least Upper Canada." When politicians actively advocate annexation through war and expect territorial gain from a war, then declare war, territorial gains as logically a cause. Rwenonah (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; I have been reviewing the archives and these users have no interest in following WP:DR and WP:CIVIL. Also see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. There is an obvious WP:OWN attitude here and I believe that it has gone far enough. The bias and censorship in the article is amazing; there is not even a mention of this (only briefly). The fact that editors are coming here to object against the way it is being presented with legitimate concerns and arguments every short while tell as much. (However they are silenced by a vocal minority of users who are bent on defending a pro US position and use logical fallacies and attacks against "trolls" who dare to challenge their rule. This HAS gone far enough.) Your responses are in no way satisfactory or valid ("thats a Canadian myth, thats a Canadian myth").Green547 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * cherry picking a A phrase here and word there does not do Nugent justice. He starts his treatment on page 73 by clearly stating "expansion was not the only American objective, and indeed not the immediate one." the people who cite Nugent mysteriously omit this key sentence that starts his argument  Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

...and I never said it was the only objective. Interesting concoctions, but really, how silly are we going to get? Seriously. Green547 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely a straw man fallacy there. No one's claiming it to be the only objective, and that sentence doesn't contradict Nugent's support for it as a cause. Indeed, it implicitly shows that he believes it to be an objective for the American declaration of war. Honestly, when an author writes about the War of 1812 in a book about American expansionism, it's probably not to talk about how expansionism was not involved in causing the war. A bit of logic would save you making a lot of these repetitive comments. Rwenonah (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rwenonah, would you recommend to put this (annexation) uder the Origins section? Green547 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As of now the scholarly dispute is outlined there, under the title American expansionism. Rwenonah (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The present form is almost completely inadequate. Firstly, it makes no distinction between annexation of Canada and west frontier expansion. These should be two sections dealing with each. Also, we should move the annexation cause upward in the list. Finally, considering the significant number of historians who advocate annexation as a cause of the war, as well as clear evidence (quotes, political advocating and expectations, War Hawks etc.), it should probably be treated as more of a fact than a dispute. Green547 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No I do not think we have a "the significant number of historians who advocate annexation as a cause " . It's a minority view that has gone out of fashion. just Nugent in part  (he says it was NOT the immediate cause but in a book on expansion he lists several annexation discussions.  Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. "However, a significant minority of historians believes that a desire to annex Canada was a cause of the war. This view was more prevalent before 1940, but continues to be held by a number of historians..." followed by eight sources (Stagg, Stanley, Heidler, Tucker, Nugent, Carlisle, Golson, Pratt, Hacker, Hickey)! Please stop making such obviously wrong statements. Green547 (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Twisting historian's views isn't changing anyone's mind. Claiming Straw Man arguments when you have been answered in detail exactly to your points ain't getting the job done either. Claiming WP:OWN and WP:Civil while ignoring every argument to the contrary isn't exactly impressing me. As per the beginning of the page you will find very few historians of note that singular point of view. The NW territory was far better land than over the border. Green you are wasting people's time over and argument that has been run over more times than you'd care to count. That isn't me being uncivil it is you beating a dead cow. Tirronan (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tirronan but I will have to straightforwardly say that you are wrong. I am not twisting historian's views; I think it is quite clear who is doing that. Straw man fallacies? Claiming things like "Green547 will take nothing except US defeat" and then proceed to defeat that. I have not been answered in detail to my points; in fact, quite the opposite is happening. You have presented no arguments for any of your claims, including the claim that you are not violating WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. (And you do not have to be "impressed"; this article ain't yours.) I have already said a significant number of historians do advocate that POV and provided backing for that claim. "The NW territory was far better land than over the border." That doesn't have any relevance here and is a silly argument. I have already said that if you have any coherent objections to my proposals to resolve my legitimate concerns, state them. Otherwise please stop wasting my time with unsubstantiated accusations and irrelevant claims that "we have already done this a million times". Green547 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, do we have any rational objections? Otherwise, to start editing. Green547 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As for my being impressed I am saying that you do not have my consensus, nor do I see a great deal of the same for other editors consensus. For the record I don't own the article. But for major changes you do need to reach a consensus. I let the other editors speak for themselves. I will again make the point that the article reflects the majority of RS historians which is why it is where it is. That isn't to say that they do not change over time. The recent findings about the causes of the American Civil War comes to mind very quickly. If you can't gain consensus with the other editors as per below, you do have the right to demand a WP.RFC. In fact I do recommend it to you. Regards. Tirronan (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Green 547 you need to open a WP:RFC for these editing changes you are seeking. The discussion above has ranged over a variety of subjects and I am not exactly certain what revisions you are proposing for the article.  Any information added to or deleted from this article should be according to reliable sources and the result crafted by editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not depend on a head count. (And we must be careful using the word "majority" since it is often used wrongly.) Also, certainly there are reliable sources which state that annexation was a cause for the war.


 * The changes I am proposing are the following: 1) In the Origins section, properly distinguish between westward expansionism and annexation of Canada. 2) Move the annexation cause upward in the list (if shoving annexation as a US desire to the end of the list isn't biased, I don't know what is). 3) Treat the annexation cause as more of a fact than a debated "possibly" - considering the several historians who advocate it as a cause as well as important evidence suggesting it. 4) In the infobox Results, change "military stalemate" to "successful defense of Canada" (or "British territories", etc.). The reason for this is that "military stalemate" doesn't do justice - the US was driven back from her conquests.


 * All that said, a RfC is a possibility; however, it will have to wait a few days due to personal reasons. Regards, Green547 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * no. We've been over this a dozen times. Expansion is in there. Annexation has been rejected by the RS as a cause of the war in recent decades. It was a bargaining-chip strategy after the war began for other reasons. Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rjensen, your statements have been amply proven wrong a number of times. Please stop repeating old & refuted arguments. If you have any valid responses, pls state them at the RfC when (if) I open it. Green547 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Green547 is getting tiresome. The basic problem is that he does not cite RS and without them no changes will can be made. Rjensen (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rjensen who is not citing RS? Not questioning the comment I'm just confused. Green547 1st you have not proven Rjensen wrong. This is the sort of dismissal of any evidence that I was talking about before. 2nd Instead of refuting claims why don't you head over to the US National Archives website and take a look? I'm not suggesting for one minute that we venture into WP:OR but you can answer a lot of your questions there why RS sources are standing where they are? 3rd. You might check with the Milhist group and check out their answers on the question. The War of 1812 is one where most of the documentation is well recorded. Until/unless you can provide really good and specific RS based info all you are going to get is reverted. I am asking you to do some basic research on the subject. Rjensen is a documented scholar on the subject and telling everyone they are wrong and you are right isn't a reason to change the article. On a personal note, I'd simply love to see something new that would make us change our minds. I think that most of us would.Tirronan (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore the numerous RS in support of annexation as a cause of the war in favour of blindly asserting scholarly consensus rejects that and disqualifying any source that contradicts your set views, then you're committing the same willful blindness you decry in others. Rwenonah (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is repetitive of earlier discussions. Only fringe and outdated sources say that annexation was a cause of the war.  Mind you it is a powerful myth.  TFD (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the problem Rwenonah, I haven't seen and RS supporting this yet! (flapping arms) Hell give me something to work with at least!Tirronan (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay.


 * Alan Taylor, The Civil War of 1812, pg.137-139
 * David Heidler, Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812, pg. 4
 * The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812, p.g. 236
 * George F. G. Stanley, The War of 1812: Land Operations, pg. 32
 * Walter Nugent, A History of American Expansionism, pg. 73-75
 * U.S. Army Center for Military History. American Military History, Army Historical Series, Chapter 6. http://www.history.army.mil.htm
 * These come to mind. I can produce plenty more given a little time. Rwenonah (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * you grossly misread Taylor and Nugent. Taylor says "In the end Congress punted on deciding Canada's future." [p 139] Taylor says the Republicans were divided on the question of annexation some in favor in some against. Southern Republicans were strongly opposed because it would strengthen the votes of the North in Congress. Nugent says it was a wartime strategy in terms of a bargaining chip; They do not support the thesis. I reject Stanley-- he is not an expert on American  politics. "Ency 1812" has zip on p 236. (there are two such books; what  is the exact quote?).   American Military History, Army Historical Series, Chapter 6. does not state that annexation was a cause of the war. It only gives one sentence to that subject (on the Westerners), with no evidence in support. not RS on this topic.  Heidler and Heidler -- p 4 is about the best you have found.  a) it has only  one sentence on the topic with no footnotes and no references to any actual people, b) it argues by implication not from direct evidence, c) it insists that maritime rights were far more important than expansion or annexation. is that good enough to overturn the scholarship – No. it's too ambiguous to do that. Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard, is there anything in the actual archives? I mean anything talking about dividing the colonies into US States or anything to support the theory there? Did I miss anything?Tirronan (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote from the Heidlers from page 4 seems to have more to do with their referring to the views of others and not their own view. If you go to page 12 under The Legacy of the War they give an entirely different view. Also, someone should carefully read the section American Expansionism. There is a large duplication in it. Dwalrus (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's disturbing how every time a source that contradicts your set POV on the war's causes comes up, you come up with a reason to disqualify it. This isn't editing based on the sources; it's editing based on a set idea, with only sources that agree with that POV qualifying for your personal guidelines of reliability. Taylor does support expansionism as a cause; if a significant portion of the political elite (including key decision makers like Monroe and Clay) aggressively promote expansionism as a reason for war, as he argues, then votes in favour of war while expecting territorial gains, that makes those gains a cause. Nugent extensively expresses his support, saying things like "The American yearning to absorb Canada was longstanding. In 1811-1812 it became part of a grand strategy ... Why was annexation popular? Land hunger was part of it ... A critical mass of pro-American infiltrators did not exist, which was one reason why the annexation failed ... If the invasion worked, it would gratify long-held dreams of driving Britain out of North America and making it all American." I quoted this a few days ago; have you really managed to forget already?
 * You don't get to "reject" Stanley - wikipedia is governed by WP:RS guidelines, which Stanley's book definitely fits, not your personal ideas clearly shaped to exclude books that disagree with you and applied very selectively for the same purpose. The "Encyclopedia if the War of 1812" (the one by Tucker, which I clearly identified as such above) says, on pg. 236, "Americans were eager to wage war with the British not just to end Indian depredations in the Midwest but also to seize Canada and perhaps Spanish Florida." That's definitely not "zip" - have you really stooped to trying to deny the existence of obviously supportive material? The U.S. Army Centre for Military History is also definitely a RS, and is particularly interesting because it so emphatically contradicts your assertion above that the only historians advocating expansionism are "some Canadians in mind who never did research in US records".  The Heidlers' support for the concept is also rejected on your cherry-picked guidelines for what a reliable source is, which, in addition to being wholly unrelated to WP guidelines, exclude a lot of the sources you use supporting expansionism. To Tirronan - hopefully these are sufficient reliable sources for you. Rwenonah (talk)
 * I understand that everyone is frustrated but leave the personal slights out. American politics even at the best of times is factional and with the ongoing slavery issues rearing their ugly head confuses the issue at the time even more. Pro-slavery adherences were adamant in opposition to annexation of Canada, they didn't want more Yankees voting against them. In this case ugly as it sounds the protection and expansion of slavery was a big issue. The New England States didn't even want a war let alone annexation. Oh NE was going to protest the impressments and seizures but they didn't want anything interfering with the profits they were makings, Yankee traders indeed. The War Hawks fulfill all the requirements you could want in support of annexation but they were not the decision makers. Which brings up the point that Richard was making Ronald. Yes we have a few RS statements to the fact "seize Canada and perhaps Spanish Florida.", or words to the effect of. Here is the issue for me: In a war where I can find the sloop of war burned in Washington and the new 44 gun frigate, detailed reports on losses, discussions on how campaigns and objectives, were to be run, ad nausea. In a time where every speech given about the war is documented. Where the hell are the documents that state Annexing Canada as a war goal? Even RS sources have to list supporting evidence as supported by discovered in their research and this I don't find. I suspect, but do not know, that is why support for expansionism as a cause has been on the decline for the last couple of decades. As a cause for the war this is very shaky ground.Tirronan (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no "documents" explicitly stating any war goals that I've ever heard of, since as far as I know that really was never done. No one wrote down "let's declare war because of Indian raids and impressment, but not expansionism." Even if there were, I wouldn't expect them to include expansionism, since countries generally want to conceal their less savoury motivations for war with more noble-sounding ones. Few countries ever declare war on the announced basis of taking land. If you're talking about Congressional speeches, letters by lawmakers, or proclamations issued during the war showing what American generals believed would happen to Canada post-war, there are plenty. Alexander Smyth and WIlliam Hull both issued proclamations signalling their expectation that the territories they conquered would be annexed. Even major decision makers like Henry Clay and James Monroe expected territorial gains when they declared war.
 * Sadly, we can't use those as sources (WP:Primary sources), since wikipedia relies on scholarly interpretations of those sources. Which leaves us with a bunch of secondary sources saying several different things. Having look eat the sources opposed to expansionism few to none of them have the ancillary research you mention. It's strange how these guidelines you and Rjensen have invented are being applied to one body of scholarly opinion but not another. I wonder why? Rwenonah (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ron. No I am not suggesting we cross over into WP:OR but we can use it to get a better grip on what was going on at the time. As for my intentions I was hoping to find a smoking gun and suggest that a minority view status on Canadian Annexation might be an acceptable compromise. It was nowhere near a primary cause as some would champion it or the sole cause in the case of some so called historians. But if RS is the sole determinism that a small comprise might be in order. That only being on the case as a minority view. Be careful how you assess my goals here. 1st and foremost I want accuracy, if the historiography shifted to US major loss and Canada was the sole winner (OK I am being ludicrous) then that in my view would be what would have to be represented. Given that a few RS sources are giving at least some support (yes single liners with no support for the most part) that might be something the rest would consider a decent compromise. As of right now I'd have to say that at best support for annexation is a fading line in the historiography mainstream.Tirronan (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion and it seems clear to me that there are RS which support annexation as one war aim, out of a number, of at least some Americans. The fact that they were not direct decision makers in the sense of being Cabinet members, for example, is irrelevant. The decision makers were not absolute dictators and had to take all shades of opinion into consideration. Modern historians tend to discount this but those earlier historians closer to the events seem to be more sure that annexation was at least part of the mix, I am not clear why this should be the case. In any case it should not be airbrushed out of the article but given suitable weight which seems to be the case in the current version of the article. Dabbler (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason this latest exchange of opinions on the question of annexation of British territory as a cause of the war is taking place is because one person started it by making accusations of bias. There is no attempt to "airbrush" it from the article and I don't believe that Rjensen is suggesting that. The article should be left as is. As for your comment on modern historians I strongly disagree. They have far more resources available to them than did those writing in the decades immediately after the war. Also, keep in mind that there were 79 votes for war in the House of Representatives and 19 in the Senate. The number of those politicians who are quoted as favoring annexation is actually a very small part of that total.Dwalrus (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps the case of the NW Territories that bother me the most. There was quite a bit of context to kick Britain out of Canada. Britain had forts in the area despite having ceded the area in the Treaty of Paris. OK I don't think there is a lot of controversy on that subject. But I notice that the question of OK what then doesn't come up. We get into what if territory after that but annexation or "we are not giving up the colonies until" seem the only two possibilities. So there should be some support on that at least. Here is exactly where my support ends, however. I don't see any circumstance where America goes to war for the reason of annexation. There were too many provocations from the British on all issues related to trade. Worse, the British seemed to have no regard for American territorial waters what so ever. Without that, America would have simply rolled over the NW territories without further ado. As for Pro-US bias, I pay that as much attention as all the complaints about WP:OWN and WP:Civil. Just more crap to push an agenda regardless of fact. Here at least we have some support for it.Tirronan (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is any question that annexation by itself had anywhere near the support to cause the United States to go to war. As the British-American historian Reginald Horsman stated in his book The Causes of the War of 1812: "The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it." And: "Had there been no war with France, there would have been no Orders in Council, no impressment, and, in all probability, no War of 1812." Almost all historians see maritime issues and impressment as the main issues leading to war, even those who include a desire for British territory. Another interesting point is that Pennsylvania gave the largest number of votes (16) for war, but Victor Sapio in his book Pennsylvania and The War of 1812 could find no evidence that they were motivated by a desire to annex British territory. It appears they were motivated by anger at Britain. They also had a history of strong party loyalty and, therefore, voted along party lines.Dwalrus (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet plenty of historians disagree with Horsman. To apply the test Rjensen used to determine reliability above, Horsman cites no people or actual evidence, so he is apparently not a reliable source on the subject. No one's called annexation the primary issue, nor do many historians, but myriad sources attest that it played a role in motivating war, including key figures like Clay and Monroe. It's therefore odd that every time the subject comes up many editors deny the existence of this body of opinion among scholars and try to pretend they uniformly deny it as a cause.Rwenonah (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maritime issues were the main issues, I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. The fact that British Captains were getting to seize ships, and getting well paid for it. Then we have impressment to man a British Navy getting more desperate every day. Any chance that the American public would forget it was cancelled by British warships in our waters doing all the above and complaining about insults to his Majesty's Navy. All that is a given, but NW Territory was also and issue, again one that doesn't happen without the maritime issues. We can hypothesis that mostly it is anger at the British but to what part was it annexation? I don't the Canadians would be able to tell the difference. And that is all that I am saying about it. Extending beyond that point I just can't get there.Tirronan (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue of how we use secondary sources. The goal is to use "reliable" secondary sources. A full-length scholarly article in a journal (like Horsman) or multiple pages in a book based on significant wide research by leading scholar should count very heavily in my opinion. A single sentence, without footnotes or references to any scholarship, especially in a book on an entirely different subject by a person (like Stanley-- an expert on Canadian fortifications ) who is not an expert on American politics, should count for very little. Wikipedia rules already downplay the use of tertiary sources such as textbooks and other encyclopedias. Rjensen (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But those aren't Wikipedia guidelines - and you aren't applying them then to the sources aupporting your position. If you did, several would be disqualified under your own standard. Of course, you're not doing that. Not to mention that Taylor and Nugent, both leading historians in their fields, discuss annexation as a cause at length. It's pretty obvious you're tangentially seeking to disqualify sources that disagree with your position while ignoring faults in sources that support it. Rwenonah (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the wp guideline it falls under is WP:CHERRYPICKING. Here's the clue: if an editor has a preconceived idea that in fact is not based on a close reading of the reliable sources, the mad editor will use Google searches to find a sentence here and a sentence there that seem to support his preconceived ideas. That editor will avoid complex discussions in the reliable sources, such as journal articles and monographs. That is just what we have here by Rwenonah and Green547.  Their preconceived ideas happen to exactly match the old mythology taught him Ontario high schools but no longer appearing in Canadian history textbooks. I have no idea if they studied history and Ontario high schools – they can tell us about that-- so it may just be a coincidence.  I have twice been invited by the Ontario teachers to give talks about 1812 and all that, and from what teachers tell me, this mythology is still in place orally even if it is not in the Canadian textbooks anymore.  As for Taylor and Nugent, they both discuss annexation, and they both say it was not a cause of war. Taylor's interesting: he looks at the debates and the House and Senate and sees that there were in fact annexation proposals being discussed, but in every case they were rejected by roll call votes.  Rwenonah has read the page in Taylor (p 138), but he is never assimilated (or should I say annexed) that information because it does not comport with his preconceived notions. see  Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK that pretty much closes the discussion then for me. I'll get the book Thanks.Tirronan (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ad hominem - the classic recourse of one with a weak argument. You're the one avoiding discussing the sources by attacking how I found them. You seem to have this preconceived idea that annexation as a cause is a Candian myth, so that when sources are presented contradicting that, you fall back on simply asserting its supposedly mythological nature in direct contradiction of sourced evidence. Taylor does support expansionism as a cause; if a significant portion of the political elite (including key decision makers like Monroe and Clay) aggressively promote expansionism as a reason for war, as he argues, then votes in favour of war while expecting territorial gains, that makes those gains a cause. I'm glad to see you've cottoned on to Nugent though.Rwenonah (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you are not depending on any reliable source. Everything yoiu say is so superficial and clearly not based on any sources you mention. That's because the items you listed mostly have one sentence on the matter and the serious ones like Taylor you garbled. That tells me you are relying on an old dimly remembered POV, which you & Green refuse to admit. POV is not allowed here, nor are dim memories of a high school lecture. Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you obviously suggest wrong, since I've cited at least six on this page alone. Did you somehow miss that? I recommend you take your own comments about POV to heart; you seem to be set in the view that expansionism is a "Canadian myth" and systematically search for reasons to reject sources which support it, regardless of how reliable, authoritative and valid they are. Incidentally, many of the sources supporting expansionism are disqualified under the guidelines you invented. Much as you might like me to be relying on a POV, saying it doesn't make it so, and the numerous reliable sources I've quoted obviously contradict that. If you have a policy-based argument, I'd be interested ins eyeing it - false characterizations of my position based on your personal point of view I'm kind of tired of. Rwenonah (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you have stated about Alan Taylor that: "if a significant portion of the political elite (including key decision makers like Monroe and Clay) aggressively promote expansionism as a reason for war, as he argues,..." I have Taylor's book but I'm having trouble finding where he states that Monroe aggressively promoted expansionism. Would give the page number for that statement by Alan Taylor?Dwalrus (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a misstatement on my part; I meant today he identifies Monroe and Clay as expecting to gain territory from a war, not promoting it. He simply says "Many Republican congressmen longed to oust the British from the continent and to annex Canada". Monroe and Clay were notable, according to Taylor, for expecting territorial gains from the war, and he contrasts them with opposing Republicans advocating its use as a bargaining chip on pg. 139. Rwenonah (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ron, it really doesn't matter anymore. The US Senate refused to annex Canada every time the subject came up. That is a definitive answer and one recorded in the public record. So anyone proclaiming that the US should or should not annex Canada doesn't matter. The will of the Senate was that the answer was no annexation. That relegates Canada to a target in a grand campaign not the future happy farming grounds. Every single time the US added a state the regional power issue came up. Adding 5 northern states just was not going to happen. Tirronan (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Tirronan, the reference by Alan Taylor to Monroe expecting to gain British territory if the war was successful is a mistake. Rjensen has mentioned an article by Richard W. Maass ,"Difficult to Relinquish Territory Which Had Been Conquered": Expansionism and the War of 1812," Diplomatic History (Jan 2015), where he shows that Monroe's instructions actually were intended to mean something else entirely. The problem resulted from historians not viewing the entire message Monroe sent. If you can you should see that article.Dwalrus (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Historical interpretation isn't a zero-sum game, and Maas' interpretation is no more valid than Taylor's especially since he was obviously trying to fit it to a set of ideas he already held.
 * To respond to Tirronan's speculation with some speculation of my own: as Taylor says, the Senate kept its options open on Canada; it definitely didn't decide against it, it just didn't decide for it. There's no reason annexed territory would shift the power balance either, since it most likely wouldn't have become a state - after all, granting self- government to people opposed to being part of your country is illogical. It more likely would have been annexed to existing sates, kept disenfranchised, or at most turned into one new state which wouldn't affect the power balance. Rwenonah (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article by Maass? If you have not then your comments are meaningless. If you have read it give some specifics of what he says. Referring to "zero-sum" is just silly. Dwalrus (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Senate voted twice against annexation proposals when debating going to war. That is what evidence against the annexationist argument looks like. Rjensen (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi D, Ron, well far more than that actually. I'd always wondered why the campaigns against Canada were so ramshackle, it turns out that NE was sabotaging the efforts trying to force a quick end to the war. Efforts to raise a 50k and 75k army were nixed as well. Had one of those proposals gone though and a 50,000 man army made up of trained US troops show up... But to cut to the chase you have factions for and against but overall still comes down to lack of support for land grabbing by a majority.Tirronan (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I feely admit I've never read Maas' article because it's not available without subscribing or paying. But there's no reason Maas' position on the meaning of historical documents any more valid than Taylor's, especially since he's a political scientist while Taylor is a historian who's focused on the subject. What I can read about Maas' article is interesting in several ways, though, notably the abstract he wrote for it, which says "Histories attributing the war to a U.S. desire to absorb Canada continue to be published despite relative consensus among experts that the primary U.S. objective was the repeal of British maritime restrictions, and even experts often include caveats regarding possible expansionism underlying U.S. motives." If that's not an explicit recognition that a minority view supporting expansionism as a cause, including among experts, exists, I don't know what it is.
 * The fact that annexation was proposed to the Senate and nearly passed shows that a large body of opinion among the political elite supported expansionism; it's reasonable to assume they voted for war with that in mind. So your supposed "evidence against the annexation argument" is actually evidence for it. Again, no one's called it the primary cause or said the government advocated it officially. Political leaders unofficially expecting territorial gains and it, as Maas' claims experts often say "underlying their motives", is another thing entirely. Rwenonah (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I propose a rewrite of the expansionism section, which has been getting longer and more clogged with individual opinions, to hopefully resolve this dispute permanently.


 * We detail the positions of historians on the subject, emphasizing that all identify maritime issues etc. as the primary causes but that a substantial minority supports annexation as a major cause of the war and underlying motive for declaring war, including, per (apparently) Maas experts on the subject.
 * We describe the American political conflict that made annexation so controversial (balance of internal power, Catholic population, etc.)
 * We describe how the idea remains popular in Canada but ignored in the US, largely due to different perceptions of the war. Taylor has some interesting material on Loyalist opinions on the American motives and the propaganda used to motivate Late Loyalists to fight (apparently they said the US was going to sell the territory to Bonaparte).
 * Hopefully everyone in this discussion get behind a section written on these lines so we can have a clearer, more logical and less disputed section. Rwenonah (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Except there is not a substantial minority. We could say that Bishop Strachan and others in the Family Compact promoted a militia myth that loyal settlers had saved Upper Canada for the Crown when the U.S. tried to annex them.  TFD (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the above discussion, so I can save the time of having to re-post the myriad sources cited above that show that to be false. Even Maas, a historian cited as totally opposed to expansionism as a cause in the article, says a substantial minority, including experts, calls expansionism a cause. Repeating your personal views about its mythological nature in contradiction of numerous sources isn't quite enough. Rwenonah (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been reading the conversation and note that in my experience, the more sources that are presented the weaker the case is, as if a quantity of marginal sources can make up for the lack of a quality source. Also, it harasses editors to ask them to read through a "myriad" of sources, then enter into discussions on each and every one.
 * While I do not have access to Maass' paper, I will quote the abstract, which I trust summarizes his view: "The myth that U.S. expansionism drove the War of 1812 has proven resilient. Histories attributing the war to a U.S. desire to absorb Canada continue to be published despite relative consensus among experts that the primary U.S. objective was the repeal of British maritime restrictions, and even experts often include caveats regarding possible expansionism underlying U.S. motives."  For it is a view of a tiny minority, and most popular in popular rather than academic books.
 * The title of the article btw does not support the annexation theory. It is a quote from a letter from Monroe to the U.S. envoy in London, telling him what consequences the British might face it they did not agree to U.S. demands and was written after the declaration of war.  (See A nation on trial: America and the War of 1812], p. 133.)   It was also qualified by the war being lengthy, in which case the U.S. would have obligations to the inhabitants of the British provinces and public opinion in the U.S. to retain them.
 * TFD (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So now the more sources the exist, the less validity a theory has? That's a pretty pathetic argument I don't even feel obligated to respond to. Maas actively acknowledges the existence of a large body of opinion supporting annexation "Histories attributing the war to a US desire to annex Canada continue to be published", even among experts on the subject "even experts often include caveats regarding possible expansionism underlying US motives". The quote you used from Maas totally contradicts your assertion that "it is the view of a tiny minority, and most popular in popular rather than academic books." Maas, as an academic who has studied the subject in depth throughout his career, writing in 2015, is probably on of the best sources on scholarly opinion that can be found, and he says otherwise - thus the reason he sets out to refute these people. Taylor says that Monroe and Clay expected to gain "at least Upper Canada" from a successful war from the beginning, and Monroe's attempts to get that even during a stalemate seemingly bear that out. That is an interesting addition to the peace negotiations section, however - thanks for brining it to my attention. Rwenonah (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "That conquest, with a view to extending our territory, and enlarging our dominion, was not the wish of our government." Ron as I have stated before, US Politics is by its nature factious. I think all here are acknowledging that there was a minority that desired to annex Canada. That was however not the stance of either the Senate nor the Executive branches. Moreover other factions were working and succeeded in crippling any attempt to conquer Canada. Why are you persisting?Tirronan (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Could it be that not all the significant views expressed in reliable sources have been represented, or represented fairly, proportionately and without bias?      ←   ZScarpia  17:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ^That's why. Rwenonah (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The only reason to use lots of sources is that none of them on their own are valid for the claims made. Either they do not support what one says or they are inferior sources.  Collecting numerous sources to determine their overall drift is synthesis best left to experts.  I note with Maass' article, you take part of his statement and ignore the other.  You miss "relative consensus among experts."  Do you agree there is a relative consensus among experts that annexation was not a cause of the war?  If so, do you have any policy  based reasons why the article should not reflect that fact?  TFD (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "continue to be published." yes -- they are fringe items as Maass shows. (like the naval specialist Latimer who has very bad reviews for his mishandling of politics of 1812). Wikipedia has strong rules about fringe theories. ""even experts often include caveats regarding possible expansionism underlying US motives"---caveats and possible?? They do NOT say annexation was actually a cause.  Was annexation discussed in Congress? Yes and it was voted down twice by large margins.  That's solid proof it was not a cause. Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Maas doesn't call them fringe, he just says they continue to be published, and emphasizes that even experts give the idea credence. That's a significant minority. It's all about interpretation. It wasn't voted down; it wasn't significantly endorsed. There's a big difference, and as Taylro notes, many American politicians, Monroe and Clay included, voted for war expecting to gain Upper Canada t least in the event of success. Some more sources advocating expansionism as a cause; Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny, Frank Owsley, p.g. 185, United States Expansionism and British North America, Reginald C. Stuart. I'm glad you've cleared up your position by opposing any compromise and instead advocating that expansionism be airbrushed from the article; I think it considerably clarifies things for me. Rwenonah (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

One point of gross misrepresentation
I want to respect those who have spent so much time on writing this article but one thing bothers me to no end. In the lead we only see the natives as tools of the two colonizers (e.g. "British Indians"). What is seemingly forgotten here is that they were merely on their own side. They were fighting for survival after centuries of land loss and moving ever closer to extinction; the Americans fought for Indian land, to liberate Canada from Britain, and to gain better maritime rights from Britain; the British/Canadians fought to resist the American attempt to annex Canada. Since Europe was practically apathetic about this war, we are mostly left with Americanist and British/Canadian counter-Americanist viewpoints. Both put too much weight on whether the US or the UK profited most off the war.

Don Hickey, professor of history at Wayne State College in Nebraska and author of "War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict" explains: Let me give you an old saw, a loose paraphrase of what a Canadian historian once said:

"Everybody's happy with the outcome of the war [of 1812]. Americans are happy because they think they won, the Canadians are happy because they know they won and avoided being swallowed up by the United States, and the British are happiest because they've forgotten all about it."

He didn't mention the biggest losers, who were the Indians. I estimate the American deaths were 20,000, the British at 10,000, and Indians at maybe 7,500, but that was a much larger proportion of their population.

[The Indians] lost two decisive wars, one in the old Northwest (the area around Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin) and one in the old Southwest (mostly Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi). That really opened the door to American expansion, and [the Natives] were left without any allies that they could line up with against the U.S.

When by 1814 Britain and the U.S. began peace talks in Belgium, the British negotiator Henry Goulburn declared: “The Indians are but a secondary object. As the Allies of Great Britain, she must include them in the peace … But when the boundary is once defined, it is immaterial whether Indians are upon it or not.”

Tecumseh, the honored Native leader, was killed after British forces abandoned his party. After this harsh defeat the U.S. "negotiated" over two hundred Indian treaties that involved the ceding of Indian lands and 99 of these agreements resulted in the creation of reservations west of the Mississippi River.

Systemic bias in many of our sources and an appeal to patriotism allow for a quite discriminative view. Both the British and the Americans "won" the War of 1812; it was the natives who suffered the only true losses, and the lead simply needs to stress this. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It is stated throughout the article, the big losers in this war were the Indians.Tirronan (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Tirronan - already mentioned in article. TFD (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Arms Control
One of the lasting consequences of Ghent was an unprecedented naval arms control pact between the US and Britain, later between the US and Canada, greatly restricting the size of naval forces on the Great Lakes. This treaty remained in force for a very long time, and in fact a modification was negotiated during World War II to allow the US to build a training "carrier" off Great Lakes Naval Air Station, near Chicago, to train recruits for carrier landings. I'm not seeing this in the article, and it appears to me to be a point of emphasis worthwhile in itself and also a topic that disputing factions here could agree upon. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point indeed however their is a hive off article on the consequences of The War of 1812 where is should be added. For the most part this is a silly little war which normally wouldn't count for much. However the consequences were out of all proportions to the conflict.Tirronan (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is AFAIK still in effect and was mentioned in the news a few years back when the U.S. practiced naval exercises on the lakes. TFD (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is one of the consequences of the war that does deserve to be highlighted. It may be better to do so in Results of the War of 1812 as has been suggested. Dwalrus (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Provincial regulars?
Is that the Fencibles or the Select Embodied Militia? Luke (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should we make certain content changes in War of 1812?
Should we make the following changes in the "Origins" section of War of 1812? Green547 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Make distinction between west expansion and annexation of Canada
 * 2) Move "American Expansionism"  (or "Annexation of Canada" if the distinction is made) higher up in the list
 * 3) Describe annexation of Canada, as a cause for the war, as more of a fact than a debated "possibly"

It would be beneficial to read the related talk page section where important detail, including sources, is found. Green547 (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we discussed this endlessly. The scholarship in the last 35 years is clear that "annexation" was not a cause of the war. It was explicitly voted DOWN bu the Senate twice in its debate on going to war. Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some editors subscribe to 19th century Family Compact narrative that the U.S. launched the war to annex Canada and loyal Canadians defeated them.  In the 20th century the narrative was picked up by Canadian nationalists and American anti-imperialists, but has marginal support among historians, including Canadian ones.  Obviously it deserves mention as an enduring myth, but should not be treated as a serious view.  TFD (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are falsely attributing views that we have wholesale bought into the "Family Compact" narrative to those of us that support ensuring annexation is considered to be at least included as one of many causes. I believe along with some others that there is evidence that there were some who were persuaded that annexation was part of their desire for war, but I do not accept the additional claim that you make that I must therefore accept that the Canadian militia fought off the American invaders unaided. Please be more careful in your claims. Dabbler (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The conversation above provides enough evidence to refute the false notion that America lost the war by not conquering Canada, because it was not a goal of the war. Launching this RFC on the heels of that lengthy conversation is disruptive.  Calidum   01:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read the conversation in question? Evidently not, because large numbers of sources have been presented that directly contradict that. Also, no one's said that the US lost the war by not conquering Canada - did you invent that notion as an argument more easily attacked? Were you perhaps reading a wholly different discussion? Rwenonah (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Literally the first line of above (started by the initiator of this RFC) states: "This article simply refuses to admit that the US basically lost the war and was successfully and decisively repulsed. The infobox alone contains inaccuracies. 'Military stalemate?' No, that is not the correct terminology. Rather like 'successful defense of Canadian territory' " . RJensen and others refuted that at various points throughout that section.   Calidum   01:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So where does it say that, to quote you "the US lost the war by not conquering Canada"? Also, I'd say that the fact that the American plan throughout the war was to attack and take control of Canada (or, in other swords, conquer it) shows that conquering Canada was indeed a goal of the war. Are you sure you understand the difference between conquest and annexation? You seem to conflate them above, but they definitely don't mean the same thing. Rwenonah (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Will a supporter provide the single best RS for the claim in "Describe annexation of Canada, as a cause for the war, as more of a fact than a debated "possibly" Rjensen (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that that's the case; plenty of sources show that a significant number of historians support annexation as a cause. It's definitely debated. If someone does have a source that establishes it as a fact, please present it. Rwenonah (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I think it is false to state that (in the last 30 years) "a significant number of historians support annexation as a cause." Maass says "Although later diplomatic histories of the war convincingly refuted this expansionist tale, it continues to find proponents and to be repeated in the broader literature." he names 4 such people. Hundreds have written about it & it's pretty hard to name five annexationists. [a google scholar search on causes "war of 1812" gives over 9,000 scholarly books & articles since 2011.] Rwenonah: Please quote  the one RS who is most convincing to you. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They've been amply presented above; your own source that you just quoted says so, for one. You're welcome to look above. I see no need to present the same sources for you to search for elaborate reasons to disqualify so that you can maintain your fixed idea of what the historiography should be. Rwenonah (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well no they have not been amply presented--please try again for the benefit of new people here. Just one very good RS will do. For my part I recommend highly Maass, . "Difficult to Relinquish Territory Which Had Been Conquered: Expansionism and the War of 1812." Diplomatic History (2014) Volume 39, issue 1, pages 70-97 at  http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/dh/dht132    Rjensen (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you've seen the sources and you're obviously not shifting your belief that expansionism should be excised from the article, so I see no need to give you the same sold sources to elaborately disqualify. If new editors show up, I'll repost them, but I don't see any. Maas is a decent source for expansionism as a cause, given that he acknowledges that expansionism "continues to find proponents and to be repeated in the broader literature" and "Histories attributing the war to a US desire to annex Canada continue to be published", despite they're having been, in his view "convincingly refuted" by people he agrees with. The fact Maas sets out to refute the idea shows he believes it still has academic acceptance, since one doesn't write lengthy articles refuting already discarded theories. Rwenonah (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The "American Expansionism" subsection is adequate to include both topics and I see no need to try to separate them. As for the relative position of "American Expansionism" within the list of "Origins", I believe that is unimportant. What is far more significant is the fact "American Expansionism" now takes up about 40% of the "Origins" section. That is a ridiculously high amount. Most historians believe maritime issues and impressment were the leading causes of the war. That includes most if not all of the historians cited in the "American Expansionism" subsection who also mention annexation of British territory.Dwalrus (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Modern scholarship does not support the expansionist view. Given that the US Senate voted against annexation twice. James Madison explicitly denied annexation of Canada as President of the United States. Maas's treatment of the subject was through and damming to the expansionist view. The American Expansionism section does a through job of explanation. The main and almost sole cause of this war was the maritime issues. Any other proposed cause was in fact just an ancillary to the main issue.Tirronan (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per other arguments given.  Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors   17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In his 2012 book ‘The Challenge, Britain against America in the naval war of 1812’ Professor Andrew Lambert pretty much demolishes all these US nationalistic myths one by one, revealing it as purely opportunistic land grabbing that didn’t come off. Then the old arguements about impressment were just dusted down again

"James Monroe & William Pinkney had led a high-powered American diplomatic mission to London & by the end of 1806 had negotiated realistic solutions to the issues of trade & impressment. In return for legalising the re-export trade, the treaty would have tied America to the British maritime economy, a profitable, secure position, although sacrificing a certain amount of dignity. The British were even prepared to ameliorate the impact of impressment. Jefferson simply refused to put the document before Congress. He did not want a settlement; simmering Anglo-American antagonism served a domestic agenda, polarised American politics & broke links to the corrupting sea & the Old World beyond…Americans believed that large numbers of American born sailors were being impressed. In fact, rather less than 10% of the American maritime workforce suffered this fate. Furthermore, as Jefferson, Madison & Gallatin soon discovered, American economic expansion depended on British skilled labour. A project to surrender all British sailors in American ships in return for the British ending impressment of American was quietly dropped because half of all skilled seamen in American merchant ships were British… the obsession with territorial expansion ensured that American would declare war in 1812 by invading Spanish Florida & Canada, intent on conquest. Jefferson considered the expansion of American territory across the continent the best security for his republic, while seizing Canada would give him the leverage to control Atlantic shipping. Republican defence policy emphasised land & expansion. That New England saw the future in very different terms did not strike him as an occasion for discussion let along conciliation. New England was wrong & required correction. The Embargo made war on New England because it suited Jefferson’s domestic political purposes to break the link between America & Europe & isolate & bankrupt the Federalists…Madison, Jefferson & Monroe shared an entirely unwarranted belief that the US was entitled to East Florida under the Louisiana Purchase, and developed fictional claims to the territory. The invasion of Florida demonstrates that while American belligerence may have been fuelled by Britain’s overbearing, arrogant actions at sea, the key question for American governments was land, land for farming & settlement, land to be taken from the hunter gatherer Indians, decadent Spaniards & if necessary Britain. Many have argued that American went to war in 1812 to uphold national honour. The American declaration of war was opportunist. The filibuster in East Florida & the invasion of Canada leave little doubt that American aims were territorial; the timing reflected Washington’s anticipation of another crushing Napoleonic victory"--Godwhale (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Lambert book is by a specialist on the British Navy--it has has been rejected by historians as not a reliable account of American politics: look at the reviews: 1) "The Challenge is a disaster, unbalanced and polemical." [in Naval History Feb 2014]; 2) "the author's narrative has a decided anti-American tone to it.... his book is more a partisan rather than an objective and historical account of the war of 1812.... Lambert's use of source materials covering the American side of the war is disappointingly thin and fails to incorporate some of the best scholarship now in print. As result the author offers many strong judgments that lack the proper scholarly foundation to support them." [from  Mariner's Mirror Aug 2014]. 3) Lambert's greatest weakness, however, is his failure to address the Americans in the same balanced manner as he does the British. For example, he uses charged statements such as suggesting that the members of the Madison administration" ‘deserved to be hanged’ (p 57).” [Journal of military history October 2012]. 4) Hickey says, "whenever the evidence is ambiguous, Lambert plays up sources that put the British in the most favorable light, often dismissing contrary evidence....Lambert makes dubious and erroneous claims about the causes of the war.... He says the war was popular with Republicans 'because it offered a golden opportunity to seize land from the British and the Indians' (p 395), although all the contemporary evidence suggests that Americans were genuinely concerned about the threat posed by the British maritime practices to US sovereignty....Lambert grows hyperbolic in flatly stating that 'Americans did not have their own culture' (p411) before the War of 1812....He oddly discounts American successes in the war....These are but a sampling of Lambert's errors and dubious claims. They suggest a penchant, especially when dealing with American topics, to make airy generalizations and deliver questionable judgments without looking at the evidence." Hickey review 2014 online. Rjensen (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are supporting?Tirronan (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So I read Lambert, I won't say how I really feel because I honestly don't like cussing on these pages. He might have missed two or three occasions to slight America and American's in general, but that is all. If the man ever questioned a British source it surely doesn't show. He flatly states that Impressment was a British right as we didn't have a Navy? I guess we sunk all those ships with rowboats. I swear it was like reading one of those God awful "Flag before the truth" pieces of garbage that was written at the turn of the last century.Tirronan (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- for reasons already voiced by other users. Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 22:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I've been half-watching this saga unfold, with some astonishment that it has gone on for so long with such evident lack of reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 09:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, considering the evidence, such as different representatives of the United States repeatedly saying annexation was not a reason, and the scholarly consensus being that the war was caused by mostly maritime issues, I'll have to concur with the others. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Tirronan, I’m sorry that you find certain parts of the Lambert book offensive. It’s true that he makes no bones about it being an attempt to give a British perspective to counter the welter of US bias, but I could show you plenty of US written sources that do the exact same thing in reverse. Are you sure that some of the reason for your reaction to this book is that you are really not used to seeing the traditional narrative on likes of Jefferson and Madison that you have been familiar with for so long being consistently contradicted? You should try being British and being subjected to relentless crass Hollywood lies like those presented in The Patriot, Sons of Liberty or Braveheart; they make ne want to vomit as well but I basically have no choice than to grin & bare it. You may say it’s not the same because the Lambert book presents as a historical narrative and the others are /film / TV drama but actually the effect is just the same when you know there is a whole other side to the story that is not being presented and that people will believe what they see is true history. Rjensens quotes on criticism of the Lambert book are as usual highly selective; anyone can do a Google search on a book to find magazine reviews and then cut & paste in the bits that support their argument while ignoring the positive reviews and say ‘historians have rejected it’. That’s a pretty big assumption to make from just four cherry-picked reviews but again typical. I’m sorry guys, but the fact is that Wikipedia is unbelievably US-centric. What is going on here is the exact same as happens in all the other Wiki articles on the revolutionary era and the aftermath, in that some editors’ pride will not allow them to see anything negative written about US history. You expect British editors to accept they lost the first war because they failed in their principle aim of keeping the colonies, but you somehow cannot accept the US lost the 1812 war because it also failed in its main objective of keeping Canada. The fact that pretty much the first thing the US did in both wars was to invade Canada does kind of imply that they wanted Canada and meant to keep it. You need to give people from other English-speaking countries a break and try to find a compromise that accepts that other viewpoints might be equally valid rather than just oppose everything, because all this just drives potential new editors away.--Godwhale (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is nothing new unfortunately. 1900-1950 you could find this sort of crap, and I do mean crap, on both sides of the historians. I wouldn't like it if I saw this kind of clap trap on the US side either. Perhaps you should see my edits on HMS Shannon vs USS Chesapeake before assuming a US bias on my side. You are assuming that my and other editors decisions are based upon our own view they are not. Both sides of the conflict realized that nothing was going to break the stalemate period. Wellington put it best, and Lambert didn't put it in, there was no way to force the US into surrender. That isn't my view that was the British view. Further is is the mainstream view of the historians involved. As for my view on Lambert, well that isn't going to change and I make no apology for it. He is in the 21st Century the single worst historian I've run across to date. I don't like bigots and he is one.Tirronan (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The causes in rallying cry were "Free Trade and Sailors Rights", so those are the proper leading highlights.  The western issues - delays in turning over the forts per Treaty of Paris (1783) and then the Indians ... are at best contributing factors, but not of the same prominence.  Logically, Ohio was a fringe area a loooong way inland in the days before roads and really didn't affect the main power centers of PORTS of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, etcetera ... so it's just not going to have been that powerful an influence.    I would not mention annexing Canada at all, that is just a fringe concept being given undue weight.  Markbassett (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've refrained from making comments here, but I'll just have to set facts straight at this point. Of course, no decent nation would want to be a "filthy land grubbers" as another editor put it. So of course, they're going to deny, cover up, and fight against any notion that they went after another nation's land. (ESPECIALLY if they failed.) And that's why American documents, etcetera don't acknowledge that. In Wikipedia we don't adhere to what somebody says, we report facts. And the fact of the matter is that we've seen mountains of sources and tons of evidence that annexation was, in fact, a cause and an American goal for the war. (See the talk section.) We've even seen one source which states annexation was the main cause. (Yes, I know that source isn't valid because he dodn't bow to his High-and-Mighty-ness, AMERICA!!!) So it's not a "fringe concept" in any way, . All that's been said above is very debatable, but I'm frankly tired of the whole affair, and astonished that it's so hard to fight bias in anything US-related. Editors are complaining all the time in this article's talk page. Also of note is the fact that this article failed nomination for featured status since it's US-centric. Regards, Green547 (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually in Wikipedia we do adhere to what someone says, rather than reporting facts, per Verifiability. If mainstream sources say something is true, we accept that.  TFD (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, and as I've already said, there's a large group of historians who certainly advocate annexation. I'm not saying annexation as a cause is a mainstream view, at least not in the scholarly area, but it's certainly a significant view that should not be censored just because the American POV doesn't like it. Green547 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Aftermath Question
About the only thing that I found interesting in Lambert's book was a comment about halving of the Merchant Marine and a equal jump in inter-coastal and river ships. Does anyone have a better source than Lambert?Tirronan (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A great source of raw statistics is Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. It is free on google and some other sites. It comes in two pdf files and they are very large. This may not be what you want but it is very informative. Dwalrus (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the information was indeed interesting. Here is what I found:

Between 1813 and 1815 111,000 approximate tons of shipping was lost. I assume most of it to British depredation. In 1816 209,000 approximate tons of shipping was gained, again the assumption is that most of it was going to intercoastal and river boats. Interestingly enough, the real decline in American shipping took place in 1818 called a depression in trade. I've no idea if this was just a US event or world wide. Further investigation revealed this was in fact the Panic of 1819. By 1811 Steam ships were beginning to appear and contest for traffic really picking up in gross tonnage from 1816. Growth in surfaced roads increased by 33% between 1815 and 1820. From the same source. This bold bid for the western trade to their north alarmed the competing merchants of Philadelphia, since the completion of the National Road also threatened to divert much of their traffic south to Baltimore. In 1825, the legislature of Pennsylvania grappled with the problem by projecting a series of canals which were to connect its great seaport with Pittsburg on the west and with Lake Erie and the upper Susquehanna on the north. The success of the Erie Canal spawned a boom of other canal-building around the country; over 3,326 miles of man-made waterways were constructed between 1816 and 1840. Small towns like Syracuse, New York, Buffalo, New York, and Cleveland, Ohio located along major canal routes boomed into major industrial and trade centers, while exuberant canal-building pushed some states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana to the brink of bankruptcy. History of turnpikes and canals in the United States
 * At the end of the war there had to have been a pent-up demand for trade and that probably helped overall trade figures in 1816 and 1817. Then an economic depression hit as you have pointed out. The traditional importance of maritime trade in New England and the mid-Atlantic states still existed after the war, but as the interior of the United States increased in population the traffic on the interior rivers and lakes inevitably increased. Lots of interesting statistics.
 * Dwalrus (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Question, seeking a simple answer
Clearly, one of the critical bones of contention here - apart from who won - is the invasion of Canada and why it took place. The general US viewpoint seems to be that is was a pre-emptive strike to force the Brtish to stop impressment. Therefore, can some clever soul please provide me with some kind of primary source, such as a properly verifyable contemporary letter, minute or diary entry where an American warhawk, general, president etc specifically says something along the lines of;

"We will invade Canada/ British North America/ the land to our north/Quebec and then give it back to the British when they stop impressmernt or otherwise give in to our demands, because we don't actually want it, we just plan to invade to make them see sense" In other words, we don't really want it, its just a means to an end --Godwhale (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a primary source similar to that you requested above demonstrating that the British did not intend to conquer the United States with their invasion of Washington, D.C. and other parts of the U.S.? --Noren (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * wikipedia does not depend on primary sources. we use reliable secondary sources such as this statement by a leading diplomatic scholar: " Judging by the private and public comments of contemporaries, Canada was more a bargaining chip than an object of annexation."


 * Not to revive this seemingly endless discussion, but that particular source says "There were indeed some important expansionist factors operating in the decision for war in 1812.Americans and long coveted Canada and Florida." Let's present the source's full opinions rather than deceptive quotes. Rwenonah (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone here is trying to deceive anyone. If you want to look at what was actually said it is available to the public as are all records of the of Senate and House at that time. US politics are rarely neat and tidy. The decisions however were clear in that Congress as a whole gave up on the matter entirely and the Executive branch said Britain could have its colony back when it gave up on suppressing American trade. A good book on the subject is The civil war of 1812.Tirronan (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you offer a truncated quote that fails to show the sources full opinions on the subject, that's deceptive, whether it is deliberate or not. And as I've been told repeatedly on this very talk page "wikipedia does not depend on primary sources. we use reliable secondary sources". Indeed, US politics is rarely neat and tidy; something doesn't need to be explicitly endorsed by the government for it to be a cause of the war. Rwenonah (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC

And another good book on the topic, which says completely the opposite is 'How Britain Won the War of 1812: The Royal Navy's Blockades of the United States, 1812-1815'.--Godwhale (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point, but I don't think that anyone disputes that Britain won the sea war is there? If there is I'll call him an idiot to his face.Tirronan (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You miss my point. The blockade was not about war at sea. It was about depriving the US of supplies and the ability to trade. No nation on earth was so adept at blockade than Britain, and by the time the war came to an end, US foreign trade had simply ground to a halt. This is a point made by Lambert as well.

My point with this section is this. WP makes extensive use of secondary sources but there is no rule that primary sources cannot be used. The main difficulty with secondary sources is whose sources? Thus, as has happened with this articles and happens to a great many other regarding american history is that certain editors seek out the sources that agree with their viewpoint and ignore the ones that don't. This is why Rjensen had done his usual trawl thru the internet to find neutral reviews of Lambert - always ignoring the possitive ones of course - and announced on the strength of four highly debatable quotes that 'historians have rejected it'. That four magazine reviews amount to the totality of world historical opinion is beyond me, but pretty typical, and quite honestly quite childish, and certainly not showing good faith. Lambert is more than a 'naval specialist', he is Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. He has made numerous TV programmes and appears in this documentary that can be viewed on YouTube - which is a much more honest appraisal than most I've seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bC2TWTGyQ

I must take issue with you when you say that no one is trying to decive anyone. There is a breed of US WP editor who cannot bring himself to believe that US presidents and the Founding Fathers ever acted in an imperialistic or opportunistic manner. Everything they do is always highly moralistic, and everything they say is full of wisdom. Only Britian & France act in an imperialistic manner. At the end of the day you want to believe that the war was a draw and - absurdly - that the invasion of Canada was intended as a bargianing chip, so you will.--Godwhale (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Lambert is an expert on naval history not political history. His book was not published in the academic press and he clearly explains that he rejects the way that historians view the war.  And it has not changed any views.  TFD (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course not, because you can't bring yourself to believe that America was the aggressor, and tried to take advantage of Britain's dire position in Europe to take Canada. The idea it repeatedly invaded merely to 'uphold national honour' and planned to give it back is laughable, and pure wishful thinking. It is not even fringe theory, but krank theory. There is not a shred of primary evidence to support it, which is why dubious secondary sources are used to try to 'prove' it. If there was some personal letter or speech from a leading figure to this effect, it would have been used, without question.

But if you do look at the primary sources you see that the seizure of lands occupied by others was always a major factor. In a letter to Archibald Stuart Paris on 25th January 1786, Jefferson wrote; "Our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North & South is to be peopled. We should take care too, not to think it for the interest of that great continent to press too soon on the Spaniards. Those countries cannot be in better hands. My fear is that they are too feeble to hold them till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece. The navigation of the Mississippi we must have. This is all we are as yet ready to receive".

And this is why, unlike France, Spain never allied directly with the rebels in the war of independence. The Spanish archives clearly state that the government there knew damn well that it would be only a matter of time before the Americans started trying to knock off Florida, Texas etc, and of course they were right.Other primary sources show that it was believed that taking Canada was 'merely a matter of marching' and that the US troops were to view the defenders not as enemies but as 'future fellow-countrymen'. This is why the war was widely known as 'Mr Madison's War'--Godwhale (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Godwhale, the I'll put this simply. First and foremost we are not in a state of denial. There were two causes as I see it to the war of 1812 the second being disputes on the NW Territories. Those lands were ceded to the US by Britain in the Paris Treaty of 1783. Despite that treaty Britain insisted on keeping forts and trading stations in lands that were not theirs. Mostly this was to capture the fur trade and to keep the Indians on their side as allies. Ten thousand warriors is not an inconsiderable force in that part of the country at that time. By that treaty America had every right to expand into the NW Territories and made no bones about intending to take it. It was always the intention of the US to expand from sea to sea. After reading the Civil War of 1812 you are correct that there were many factions on all sides of annexing the Canadian Colonies. In the end the US Republic was at that time so fragile that the inclusion of more northern states might well have caused a break up of the Republic. The Senate went at the issue and the annexation of the Colonies was voted down repeatedly. The Executive Branch President Madison turned down any thoughts of annexations and stated so in no uncertain terms. All the votes and President Madison's decisions are well documented in primary sources. I'm no expert in Canadian politics but pretty sure when your Parliament weighs various factions views on a matter ITS FINAL DECISION IS THE WHOLE OF THE GOVERNMENTS ANSWER. The American Governments answer to annexation was no. Now since you have been rather free to question every editor's intention, not to mention basic honestly, are you here to seriously argue this? All the events and the decisions are well recorded. Now I am asking that unless you have some previously unknown source we all need to look at, leave it be. From the tone of your questions you seem to have a serious dislike of American past, present, and future. Well I am fine with that as every man has a right to his opinion. However dragging this up again and again is getting old. By the way yes American was the aggressor, we declared war remember? Unfortunately for the America at that time it didn't bother doing anything whatsoever to prepare for said war.Tirronan (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war (attributed Winston Churchill)
Thank you for the heads up user:Tirronan.

I am going to place a temporary block on this page. There is a lot of reverting taking place with no discussion on the talk page. This make the content of the page unstable and causes stress to all those who are involved in the disputes. I expect the editors involved in these disputes to discuss their differences here and reach a compromise/consensus. If this proves to be difficult then use the dispute resolution process. -- PBS (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protection removed see Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory/Archive -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I got curious when I warned the fellow he immediately blanked the page without any attempt to reply.Tirronan (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 December 2015, Siege of Fort Erie.
There's no denying both sides ultimately retreated from Fort Erie - the Americans did not retreat, however, as a result of the battle, but because of low supplies within the fort after defeating the British. They then retired to New York, where they went into winter quarters with the remainder of the army. In the Siege of Fort Erie itself, the British were defeated and I believe someone, regardless of the editor, should make that known in the main article of the War of 1812. Note: The Americans remained in control of the fort after defending it for another two months until their decision was made to destroy and abandon it (5 November, siege ended on 21 September) to retire across the river.

Amerijuanican (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have commented out the request to make an edit template: because as it says the template says "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." As yet there is no consensus for any change. Reach a consensus first and then the block can be removed from the page. There is no need to make requests for edits while the page is blocked. -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It already says that: "The Americans lacked provisions, and eventually destroyed the fort and retreated across the Niagara."  TFD (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the British didn't retreat as a result of the battle either, but because of lack of supplies and disease resulting from their inability to take the fort. The battle was undoubtedly a factor in the decision, but the British retreat was just as much a voluntary one as the American, and I find the distinction being made here rather disingenuous. Rwenonah (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't give it a second thought we had just been subjected to another treatment by USER:InternetHero thrice banned for disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. My best description for the ending of Lundy's Land was both sides wandered off... As weird as it sounds.Tirronan (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Introduction
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm of the opinion that the opening introductory statement on the war is far too excessively detailed. Even the opening statements for the far larger and far more consequential French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars are far shorter than this. Hell, even the opening for the American Civil War and World War 2 is arguably shorter. I'd be happy to provide a re-write of the entire opening section and propose it here to come to a consensus on shortening it? (81.101.124.6 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC))
 * the opening is the product of years of debate. --there has been much more debate here than about other wars. Best to join the debate before venturing onto highly contested territory. I suggest you read my history of this article as reported in a scholarly journal. :)  Rjensen (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll second that, having not so long ago, had to inject myself into a ownership issue over at the Battle of Borodino... Sheesh do I get tired of that sort of stuff.Tirronan (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge on this theatre so shall omit myself from making it more concise, but perhaps someone who does could attempt to compact the lede a little, 7 paragraphs seems a bit much even for a complex subject. &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 20:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How many casualties did the British actually suffer?
The claim for British casualties before my edit was unreferenced and I can't seem to find many authoritative sources on the amount of casualties suffered by the British in this war, especially for those killed in battle. Historyguy says it was 1,160 and as it uses 'Don't Give Up The Ship' by Donald Hickey as a source I'm assuming it's legitimate, unless someone actually has that book and can tell me what Hickey really says about British casualties.


 * Reply =
 * War of 1812 Casualty Database - financially supported by the Government of Canada.--Moxy (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've already seen that first source and the problem is it includes Canadians in the figure for Great British casualties. It's also only one reference and seems to be in conflict with the one from Donald Hickey, assuming that website I linked to tells no lies. I'm not sure why you linked to that second reference, unless you expect me to count every single soldier who died in the war of 1812 and make a total.


 * Donald Hickey does not give the number 1,160 for British deaths in his book Don't Give Up the Ship! Myths of the War of 1812. On page 298 he writes about the difficulty in arriving at accurate casualties for the British side in the war. He cites historian Donald Graves who has looked at the muster rolls for British soldiers in Upper and Lower Canada and found that 2733 soldiers were killed in action or died from disease or accidents in those two colonies. However, there is no separate figure for killed in action, and there are no similar figures for the British who died in the Chesapeake Bay area or in the southern United States. Also, there are no numbers for British naval casualties. Hickey engages in educated guessing to arrive at a final figure of about 10,000 deaths from all causes for both the British and Canadians. Dwalrus (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In which case someone needs to update the killed in action figure for the British with a reliable reference.


 * Good luck with trying to find a single number for British KIA. The only reason we have a number for the U.S. is that it is provided by the U.S. government, but the British never provided a similar number for their KIA. All numbers that are given for the British are the product of both limited research and educated guessing. Also, the official number for U.S. KIA is 2,260 and not the 2,200 listed in the article. Dwalrus (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)