Talk:War of 1812/Archive 26

Did both sides actually claimed victory?
,, we do have Both sides claim victory in the infobox and As the war does not have a clear winner, with both sides claiming victory in Historians' views. However, I am not sure that is actually true; and in the second case, the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 does not actually say that. It says that the war does not have a clear winner and its outcome has been debated for centuries, but it says most historians take the view it was a draw and makes no mention of an American or British win, it just says some historians held that view that both sides won and others that both sides lost. Therefore, we should simply say As the war does not have a clear winner, with both sides claiming victory, historians disagree on who won the War of 1812 and have debated its outcome for nearly two centuries.

Only the Americans perhaps did claim victory with Madison's speech; the Duke of Wellington and the Edinburgh Review did not think it was a win; and for Canada it was the "militia myth" and the idea of loyalty that was used by the Family Compact to disenfranchise and suppress people. Most residents did not care who won the war and did not participate in it. The myth was invented for immigrants who arrived after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. American spelling which had been standard in the province was rejected in favour of British spelling and the local population began to call themselves Canadians, so the war was important in shaping the Canadian nation, but it could not claim win and it did not. Having a few historians claiming that Canada won is not the same thing as one side claiming victory over the other. So that wording, while a compromise with, seemed to be a sneaky way to say that a few historians claim American or British/Canadian victory, but in my view that is original research and synthesis, using a few sources who say the Americans won and others that say Britain/Canada won to claim that both sides declared or claimed victory. Davide King (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. I haven't seen any sources that make that claim. TFD (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is a bit of fluff. Yes it was held as a victory in the US. It was also just propaganda. They got into a war they should not have and barely pulled out a draw. The Madison administration was fairly imcompentent. In order to defeat the Federalists, this card was played successfully. But, it is still propaganda and irritating to have in the infobox. Tirronan (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Countries declare war, surrender and make treaties. But do they actually formally declare victory or admit defeat? A declaration of war is made in the UK by an order in council and in the U.S. by a vote of the Senate. Treaties are ratified in the same way. But is there something similar for declaring victory? (I remember Bush standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign, but that wasn't formal.) TFD (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have the right of it TFD. I don't think it belongs. Tirronan (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, if there are objections list them> Tirronan (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a major change to the infobox, the phrase "both sides won" should not be removed without discussion of all the editors active on this page, not just the editors that support the Draw viewpoint. I note that Davide King pinged TFD and Tirronan, but not me, as he knew I wouldn't support the change. The article doesn't say the war was a draw, it says the majority of historians see it as a draw, but a significant minority see it as a win for the British. Changes like this need consensus from all editors on the page, not just editors that support the US centric view, and leave out the Canadian centric viewpoint. I am reverting this change to the previous agreed version, until it has been discussed by ALL and a consensus approves for the change. Seriously, Davide King why have we opened this up again? We have spent hours tyring to get this right. I just thought I could pull away from this page and now it has started again. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is a lie, I literally mentioned you when talking about the compromise we reached. Compromise is good, but it needs to be backed by reliable sources and I am not sure that wording is supported. By the way, and . I do not think that wording is appropriate for the infobox. You are again making the nonsense claim that draw is American centric, when that is simply the view held by most historians. The American centric view would be that of an American victory. The article does say it was a draw, that it is the view held by most historians and the majority view (i.e. consensus, you for whatever reasons seem to have an issue with consensus but not majority) is that militarily it ended in a draw. It should say that is the consensus among historians because it is; when sources say most historians say it was a draw, when they do not mention one side won over the other, when historians (including Hickey, whom you mentioned below) states it as fact that militarily it ended in a draw, that is consensus. I am not going to remove the minority views, having a consensus does not imply there are not a few dissident voices; the problem is that you are overblowing them. You simply do not accept that and you view that as being American-centric. You have tried this for over a decade now. Even the third opinion wrote it seems there was no clear winner. Davide King (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

We have spent hours and hours and hours debating this infobox, and as a result, the word "draw" was inserted, which is a viewpoint seen but some historians, but not all. This was balanced by also inserting "Both sides claim victory" to reflect the fact that some notable scholars (including Don Hickey. JCA Stagg, Jon Latimer, Pierre Berton, Cohen, Andrew Lambert) see the war as a victory for the British, and a few even see it as a victory for the US, and the article mentioned this. The fact that these sources support the viewpoint that the war was was seen as a victory for one side is why the claim is in the infobox. In order to achieve a NPOV for the infobox the phrase "Both sides claim" victory was inserted, to include the view supported moreso by the aforementiong British and Canadian scholars that Britian/Canada won the war. If this is removed the page is not Neutral, the infobox only shows one side - that of the draw. I would like comments from all editors here on this before it is removed. Elinruby, Mathglot and do you approve of Both sides claim victory being removed, and the war being labelled as a draw? Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the sources were intact for others to read we could avoid the guess work over and over. read me I am an expert.-- Moxy 🍁 21:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use a 2012 article in a local newspaper for what happened 200 years ago, per contentious claims. Presumably the reporter is basing his information on published sources. If he is correct, then there should be no problem in finding a book on the war that makes this observation. TFD (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you would call a leading professor in their field a reporter. I see why so many fustrated..... the misrepresentation of sources is very odd-- Moxy 🍁 22:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jim Guy is a regular columnist, not a reporter, at the Cape Breton Post. He is a professor emeritus of political science at Cape Breton University, but I don't think he is a leading professor in his field. I could not find anything written by him in Google books In any case he not an historian, hence not an expert on the war of 1812 and since he is a columnist not a journalist, the cite fails rs, per news organizations. Regardless of policy and guidelines, why would you use a column in a Cape Breton newspaper as a source for the war of 1812? It's not as if there aren't any experts who have written about the topic. TFD (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it does say The War of 1812 ended with no side losing territory and all sides claiming victory. But this seems to be more of a both sides won which is indeed the majority interpretation among historians rather than both sides [literally] claim[ing] victory the same way a war is declared or a treaty is signed. Davide King (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We have many sources that say this as seem above. Not sure why some here have a need to suppress this fact and remove the sources that say so. Very odd what's going on here...a set of sources are being dismissed because of the country of origin. Why can't we just say what the sources say? It's disheartening to see our two resident experts on this giving up on the conversations because of the dismissal. Even had someone go as far to say there was no Canada at the time so their historic view is irrelevant. Just looks bad when we don't follow what most she is common knowledge.-- Moxy 🍁 22:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , then please show us. If it is so obvious, surely it would be mentioned in some academic book. Also I do not understand this emotional appeal or rhetoric. Indeed, it was the War of 1812 that did create Canada as a nation, but even then that did not actually happen until 1867, when it became a country. At least that is what we say at Canada. Were you referring to this? Because both Deathlibrarian and Elinruby seemed to agree that it was not a country at the time and Elinruby even wrote Nobody is saying that Canada won the war. That is just a straw man that The Four Deuces is amusing himself with. [...] And yes, we all realize that Canada was not a country until 1867. I never argued or wrote that their historic view is irrelevant; we literally have a Canadian views section. Davide King (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , seriously, why do you keep mentioning Berton and Cohen? was right. I do not see how you can include Hickey when he states it as fact that militarily it ended in a draw. Another issue is that you see the wording Both sides claim victory as shorthand for Some historians says Britain/Canada won while others say the United States won but that is not what it implies. It should be taken literally, that literally both sides claimed victory, not that a few historians say Britain won and others that the United States won (both are very minority viewpoints and are likely undue for the infobox) and I am not sure both sides actually claimed victory. I believe  and Tirronan explained it well. It was propaganda and I do not think it belongs in the infobox, that is for the actual result. We already have a whole section about all sorts of views. Davide King (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you be more specific? When and where were the declarations of victory made? Were they made by executive action or legislation? TFD (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD No Hickey, says he believes that Britain won, in multiple place, including here, where he and Andrew Lambert both say they think Britain won the war of 1812 "Despite their disagreements about the start of the war, they agree about the end. The British won, despite what Americans may think. The British kept Canada, as well as the maritime policies that Americans say were the reason for the war." http://news.wypr.org/post/myths-surround-end-war-1812#stream/0 Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Moxy good to hear from you. As I understand it Deathlibrarian and Davide King agreed to this compromise. So it was inserted after two editors agreed. Now you seem to have an issue when three editors disagree Deathlibrarian? And I see that you are misrepresenting sources again? A political scientist is not a historian. Nor is a newspaper article a serious reference. I don't remember anyone appoint you as the keeper of the infobox either.Tirronan (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , you're going off topic. The issue is whether both sides claimed victory. Unless Hickey was a spokesman for George III's government, his saying the UK won is not the same as the UK saying it won. TFD (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, this was a way to say Britain Won in the infobox?Tirronan (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I assume you were replying to me. Well, yet he states it as fact.
 * So whatever he may personally think, they agree with the general consensus that militarily it was a draw. When even historians who you claim support that Britain won still state it as fact that militarily it was a draw, I do not know what more you want us to show you that is consensus and that de facto it was a militarily draw and stalemate. By the way, in the article you listed (why do you and link us articles, in many cases when they are not written by a historian as in this case, rather than an academic source or book? Surely if you are right that it is significant, it would be reported there?), Hickey does seem to debunk your view about the Canada invasion when saying:  In other words, the war was not about invading and annexing Canada as you stated as fact many times but about British maritime rights. And yet we have  Davide King (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Timeout, what is this about references? What references were removed and what statement did they support? Tirronan (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer? Tirronan (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. Here, says we do have the source, so please show us. If it is the source at the Cape Breton Post, in my opinion  well explained why we need more than that. If it is obvious and relevant, it would surely be mentioned in academic books about the war, no? Davide King (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I"m not sure that I've seen both sides claim victory in an infobox before. I might well be wrong but it seems rather strange. The second point I have is that the reference is by a political science author, not a history book. This seems exceedingly strange. Tirronan (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources have been provided so I will remove it. As I mentioned above, the only source is a column in a Cape Breton newspaper by a politics professor. It doesn't meet rs. If it were true, there would be sources explaining where, when and by what means this declaration was made, just as we have that information for the declarations of war and the peace treaty. TFD (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we were waiting for Moxy to do something? Apparently that isn't happening either so go ahead.Tirronan (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020
my request that the United Kingdoms not the ending of the United Kingdom of Britain and ireland Bai society (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is this written in Canadian English?
It was both a multi-national war, why is Canadian grammar being used? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because that is the version that the editors chose, which they are allowed to do. TFD (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which editors? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think it was lastly discussed here. Davide King (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"nationalistic mythology happened"
"nationalistic mythology happened in the United States and Upper Canada"

What does this phrase mean? JF42 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a scholarly article on the subject:
 * There's also an article about National mythology on Wikipedia, for what it's worth (which, in my OPINION, is very little).
 * I encourage you to edit this article accordingly. It needs a LOT of work.  — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I encourage you to edit this article accordingly. It needs a LOT of work.  — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC))


 * Maybe we should rephrase it as nationalistic mythology developed. National mythologies are significant because they help determine the choices that countries make. For example, were it not for the loyalist myth, Canada might not have entered either world war, and might be a republic or part of the U.S. today. TFD (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. That would be an improvement. The phrase currently doesn't mean anything much. I am aware of the meaning of 'nationalistic' and of 'mythology.'

JF42 (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If you have read Theodore Roosevelts' book on the subject of the naval aspects of the war of 1812, it is rife with good information on the US navy but where he starts talking about race... it is enough to make one's skin crawl. It gives insight to the thinking back in the day. Tirronan (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Military historian view - how come all the citations (Hickey [cited twice??], Howe, Hiedler, Gregory) are American?
Historians' views Militarily, historians hold the view that the war ended in a draw[320][321][322][323] or stalemate,[324][325][326] with the Treaty of Ghent

- All of these citations are from American authors and completely ignore naval war. American authors view the war ended in a draw (as shown by these citations). Canadian and British historians it was an American defeat. suggest it be reworded that American historians hold the view and we then add the Canadian/British historians as discussed earlier in the archive.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMax14 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , this was already discussed in a RfC about alleged national bias of historians on who won the war and there was consensus that "sources appear to be saying that popular perception [...] differed among the three countries, not that there is any dispute among historians today related to their nationality." Davide King (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're addressing the wrong section. I am referring the paragraph headed: "Historians' views". There are no British or Canadian historians cited, as all the historians (1 appears to be a PhD writer) cited in this section are 3 American writers (for some reason there are 4 quotations). I suggest we add in a British and Canadian cited conclusion. If you refer to the talk RfC about alleged national bias of historians on who won the war, the 53 examples in the page show that whereas a majority of American historians view the war as a stalemate, the majority of British historians view it as a UK/Can success as do the majority of the Canadian historians. This entirely mirrors the public perception discussed earlier in the article. BlueMax14 20:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a general problem with Articles of this nature...being overwhelming by American editors.-- Moxy 🍁 20:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Very few historians view the war as a victory for either side. Most of the examples cited turned out to be words taken out of context. Since history is an academic discipline not a nationalist propaganda project, one would not expect that nationality would play a role in historians' opinions. Where nationality does play a role is in what aspect of the war historians chose to write about. Ontario historians for example show more interest in land battles and local politics in Upper Canada and less interest in the Battle of New Orleans. TFD (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I redirect you to what wrote. Also, can we please stop acting like it is American editors the problem? Why is it never that Canadian editors who also hold a bias? I believe in the past we had editors who pushed an American POV that the United States won and I would be saying the same thing because very few historians view the war as a victory for either side. I am European and oppose all forms of imperialism, yet The Four Deuces' take on the subject has been the correct one because they are merely following what the literature and consensus among scholars actually says. Finally, it was conclusively shown that "[t]he sources appear to be saying that popular perception, escpecially in the past, differed among the three countries, not that there is any dispute among historians today related to their nationality." Let us move on from this discussed-to-death thing and actually work to improve the article. Davide King (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020
Add a citation from existing Wikipedia page.

Change: The British attacked and burned Buffalo on Lake Erie on 30 December 1813.

To: The British attacked and burned Buffalo on Lake Erie on 30 December 1813. Niederme (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC for title and scope of American Revolutionary War
American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021
Remove a sentence that doesn't make sense (Canada was not an independent country at the time of the War of 1812; the first Prime Minister of Canada wasn't elected until 1867; even under the current system described in the citation, Canadians do indirectly elect their Prime Ministers, by electing the PM's party into Parliament).

Remove:

No Canadian was elected Prime Minister as a result of the War of 1812 because Canadians don't have the right to vote for their Prime Minister.

157.52.13.33 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. Leventio (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Burning of Washinton
This section should be deleted. It duplicates information in the preceding secion on the Chesapeake campaign, and is entirely out of sequence in the timeline, being presented after the description of the subsequent battles of North Point and Baltimore. HLGallon (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What section are you referring to specifically? Joe (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021
Please remove the line describing '4000 slaves freed' as one of the 'United States casualties and losses' of this war. Freeing slaves is not a loss. This is racist language and deserves deeper discussion about how this impacted the war and post-war events. 2600:1702:4550:7130:8459:2D22:AF83:3D3 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Not condoning slavery in any way, but in this historical context, it is a "loss" akin to losing a ship. Open to other opinions on this. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 02:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that this figure should remain in the casualties and losses section, though I think it might be better if it said 'escaped or freed' as per later in the article: "In addition, at least 3,000 American slaves escaped across the British lines. Many other slaves simply escaped in the chaos of war and achieved freedom on their own." Also, while looking into this, I noticed that the current source for the 4000 number is dead: I get a 404 error when I look for it. Other statements in the article such as "This war enabled thousands of slaves to escape to freedom, despite the difficulties." also need a citation, and the same citation might do for both, depending on the specifics. Joe (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed it to 'escaped or freed' and added dead link tags to the Weiss 2013 citations. Joe (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"Allies" in the lead
The lead currently states ""

Why does the USA have "allies" while the UK had "indigenous allies"? Apart from the style imbalance in the wording, there is a factual inaccuracy (according to the entry in the ) as Spain was an ally but not an "indigenous" ally.

Supplementary style questions: -- PBS (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Did the UK have any none dependent colonies in North America at that time? If not why include the word "dependent"?
 * 2) Why a truncated "United States [of America]" but the full name of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"? If one is truncated to a common name so should the other, or both should be given in full. Personally for stylistic reasons I would go with the truncated version of both and link the short names to the appropriate articles.
 * As to the second point, the full name of the United States of America hasn't changed and might be expected to be known by the vast majority of readers. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the other hand, might be easily confused with its successor the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by many readers if abbreviated to the "United Kingdom". That being said, for the very first sentence of the article that might be too much detail and abbreviation might be reasonable there with the full name given later, but on balance I'd weakly prefer leaving in the detail as-is.  There is a substantive difference between the two abbreviations. --Noren (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The British had the Confederation as allies. I agree that it should just be allies. As for colonies, Upper and Lower Canada were dependent colonies. As for the names of the two nations, I'll never change my stance. I've never entered into a "what should we call it" discussion, and I never will. Tirronan (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The full name of the UK also distinguishes it from the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which had existed until just a decade before the War of 1812. The UK that was fought in the then still recent American Revolution was the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It also distinguishes it from the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves and the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, which both existed within a years time of the war, and the United Kingdom of Denmark and Norway and United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, both of which existed during the war. By contrast, with the possible exception of one British protectorate, I cannot find anything else called the "United States" that existed anywhere near the time of the War of 1812. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the very early discussion on Wikipedia it was that links rather than brackets can be used to clarify this: United Kingdom. -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What does "dependent" mean and were there any colonies in the theatre that had a different status, eg the Newfoundland Colony? -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021
I would appreciate it if you changed Indians to first nations. calling them Indians was something we did in the past like 30 years ago, now its just disrespectful and rude.

I am not a first nations person myself, I'm Canadian, but they deserve better respect. 2001:56A:751B:CF00:1568:250:509:54AF (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. "Indian" in this context is far from universally frowned upon, and changing it in any direction could be controversial.  Gaioa  (T C L) 20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Gaioa on this, glancing through the sources reveals that the term 'Indian' is widely used. Further, the proposed replacement term, 'first nations,' is an unfit substitute since it refers to "the predominant indigenous peoples in Canada south of the Arctic Circle." Native Americans such as the Red Sticks, who participated in the war, did not live in Canada, or any part of the world that would later become Canada, and so cannot be described using the term first nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoePhin (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021
Maee1234567891011 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC) The war of 1812 war from 1943-1989
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Anything you want to change? —Belwine (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Title of Soldier on Monument
It says Canadian soldier, but it is a Newfoundland soldier. Newfoundland never joined Canada until 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.217.32 (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Good catch, a Newfoundland soldier of the time would not have been or thought of himself as Canadian.--Noren (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021
In the results of the War of 1812, it says that it was a draw. This is not true because Britain got to keep Canada, and had fewer casualties than the Americans. 2601:2C2:682:F270:593:BF13:6B42:424F (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a division among historians and between countries on who actually won the war. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to represent that division. Further, in the final negotiations, Britain did not receive all that they wanted (a Western Indian state) and the United States achieved their main war goal, preventing the British from impressing American sailors. Some would say that means the Americans won. Others would say that the greater American casualties and the fact that Britain was able to hold onto Canada (or that they were able to get the war to end in the first place and focus on their primary conflict in Europe) means that Britain won. While calling it a draw may be simplistic, the 'draw' listing in the infobox probably represents the closest description of the war's result that can be encapsulated in fewer words than I just used. The rest of the article goes into great detail about this. Keep it as it is. Joe  (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Addressing "too long"
Let's be concrete here - I propose that the entire "course of war" should be its own article. Most is well written, though really, really detailed. I'd suggest keeping a one to two paragraph - NO LONGER! - summary here, with the a link to the separate article "Military engagements in the War of 1812" or something like that. Thoughts? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The coverage in question should be incorporated into a new article before it is removed here. Too many times I've seen text removed with the idea that it will go into another or a new article and it never happens. As noted above, the length only involves a guideline, not some rigid WP policy. Also, there is a guideline that says that text should not be removed for the sake of reducing article length alone. --- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with User Gwillhickers, unless the alternate page is already created and functional, no action should be taken to remove text in this article. Also, no matter what we do, the War of 1812 article is always going to be on the longer side, the subject matter being complex. If you make a nice 'course of the war of 1812' page, I'll be happy to check it over, Moishe Rosenbaum. Joe  (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What I'm not quite understanding is that any article about a given war describes that war during the course of the war. Most articles about a war are basically structured with three components: i.e. Causes of the war; The war itself (its course); Aftermath of the war. The major battles of any war usually have their own article. If there is excessive detail involving any battle, and if there's a dedicated article for a given war, we can entertain the idea of trimming the coverage here, but again, not unless or until this is covered in another article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, just a quick comment, but SOME action should be taken in terms of trimming down this article. I believe Gwillhickers point is that any content removals should be done within reason and moderation (as opposed to large-scale content moves for the sake of reaching a certain size limit). And with that in mind, that there should be a small summative paragraph in the Memory and historiography section regarding the content moved over to Historiography of the War of 1812 (as opposed to a blanked section).


 * With regards to a "course of the war" article, that actually already somewhat exists as Timeline of the War of 1812. Leventio (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Leventio, Timeline of the War of 1812 is, right now, just a list of events without any context or explanation. Do we want to change it to include all the text from the 'Course of the war' section?. Joe  (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you stole my thunder. Yes, the timeline article is indeed just that, and is not the place to be moving large amounts of text into. I'm not very convinced that we need a separate 'Course of the war' article in the first place. This article is about the War of 1812, so it is perfectly appropriate that we cover that war's 'course'. I'm not seeing where any particular battle(s) is covered too much. The only thing that's been proposed thus far, in terms of moving the coverage in question, is this article's length – but again, text should not be removed simply for the sake of reducing article length. Any removal of text should be based on the ideas of redundant and wholly tangential coverage. I'm of the school of thought that an article's size will find its own length and will assume practical limits if we keep redundancy and tangential coverage in check. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gwillhickers and Joe and everyone. What I'm reading is NOT consensus to move this course of the war section, and your reasoning makes sense.  And I'm hearing, my paraphrase, "don't remove well-written to meet page-length goals."  I'm fine with that.  But what that means is, this "too long" tag needs to go.  I'll remove it again.  I will continue to occasionally look for places to cut overly-detailed text, as I did last week.  But after this discussion, I don't see justification for the tag.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (And whoops, Gwillhickers already removed it when I wasn't looking. Thank you, and sorry I didn't notice!  Nice work on the article.)Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

POV tag - discuss here, or let's remove!
Hi... there are two tags on the article that have not received significant pointed discussion here. I removed them yesterday; reverted, with the complaint that the article refers to the "kidnapping" of American sailors, and thus is POV. While I respect this argument, I also see three problems with using the POV tag: (1) While various POV issues have been discussed over the past year on the talk page, I don't see the discussion about "kidnapping" - either now or in June when the tag was originated. Please let me know if I missed something! (2) The original POV tag didn't say anything about kidnapping, but rather complained about "atrocities" and "manifest destiny" - and I also couldn't find discussion of either issue on the talk page in the past 10 months. (3) While these issues are legit discussions about neutrality, neither justifies a tag that calls into question the entire article. The page-level POV tag should be reserved for when talk page discussion has failed to resolve a major issue that dominates the article. For unresolved wording issues like these, after talk page discussion they could be tagged on the specific sentence. Without talk page discussion, though, none of these are justified. I'm going to revert the "too long" tag, which no one has substantiated at all. I'd ask that people who dispute the neutrality please remove the tag and discuss here first. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If your issue is that the tag doesn't mention the POV language, I'm quite happy to add it in. In addition to the POV language, which runs throughout the article, there are a number of POV problems.
 * The infobox gives the result as a draw, a single particular point of view, rather than redirecting to War of 1812 " where the result is discussed in detail" as recommended by the infobox template "in cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome". [] This issue was partly why the tag was added, and was never resolved because of distracting false narratives about national bias and fringe theories, accompanied by walls of text.
 * The article is horribly unbalanced, pushing the nationalistic view of a second war of independence and national honour to the fore while playing down more mainstream causes and effects such as Britain's maritime rights and the US desires of territorial aggrandizement.
 * The primary US objective was the repeal of British maritime restrictions (even American historians such as Richard Maass and Reginald Horseman agree on this) yet the article dismisses Britain's retention of its maritime rights as irrelevant.
 * The article makes constant reference to the taking of American citizens when the Royal Navy only impressed those considered to be British subjects. Mistakes were made but anyone who later proved to be an American citizen was returned. There was disagreement between the belligerents as to what made someone an American citizen and therefore referring to them as such is a POV term. The term kidnapping is certainly not neutral in any event.
 * There is a disproportionate number of quotes by American historians promoting an American point of view.
 * I haven't had time to thoroughly review the article but the issues above should be enough to suggest the POV tag should stay for the time being.--Ykraps (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue of article's size was raised in the talk page before (see Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23), and was one of the underlying themes for the discussions that took place in 2020. And in saying that, even if a discussion had not taken place regarding the article's length, I would argue the article size alone would warrant the inclusion of said maintenance tag (as recommended in WP:SIZERULE) Leventio (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I see - thank you for the link! Lots of discussion of spinning off portions of the article. But okay, there has been some - brief - talkpage discussion.  Oy, I fear for the soul of the editor who tries to make editorial judgments about what to spin off.  Similarly, there's certainly been way, way too much repetitious discussion of "bias" without action.  I don't argue that the page includes biased language in several places! I question, though, whether the whole page demands this tag o' shame, insinuating that the page is rotten to its core with bias.  I'd prefer that we use this sort of tagging for much deeper, more bright-line POV violating articles.  Like, if this article were unabashedly pro-American throughout, denigrating the British/Canadian/Native American POV, and editors fought every effort to change that entrenched point of view.  I don't see that - I see multi-sided weasel words here and there.  That's not tag-worthy, I don't think.  See what Moxy says below - if I make changes to some of the biased wording, am I going to be immediately reverted by the other side?  If so, the tag needs to go, because there's no way forward.  If we truly want biased language removed, we've gotta support those who try to make the changes.  Without fillibustering.  So... what would it take for people to agree to remove the POV tag?  Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We call this junk tagging......zero benefit or way forward because the vast majority don't see it or have no clue what's going on.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with and .  The idea of "kidnapping" is not at all outlandish, because the men in question were indeed captured and forced to perform a service against their will. Using the term "impressment", drafting, involves a country drafting its own citizens to fight in a war to protect or serve their own country. This term doesn't exemplify the idea that men from one country were captured by another country and forced to serve on its side of the war.  In any case, too many times I've seen an individual editor tag an article and then just walk away and make no real attempt to resolve the issue.  I've also see articles tagged in a veiled attempt to push another POV, by trying to suppress or sugar-coat the existing account in the name of neutrality. Hopefully that's not the case here. At this point both tags needs to be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the POV tag (I try to avoid more content based disputes with this article in particular). In saying that, the opinions people have with the POV tag should not relate to and affect the placement of the article length maintenance tag (which is addressing a separate issue); and I would be against the removal of that specific template if said issue hasn't been remedied. On top of multiple editors already bringing up this issue in the past, at the moment, the article's readable prose still exceeds over 100kb, well beyond what Wikipedia recommends for page splitting and trimming down. Leventio (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * — Partial agreement. There are guidelines about page length -- not rigid policies. At the top of every guideline page there's a banner which says there may be "exceptions" to the rule for exceptional articles, and that "discretion" should be used. It would seem that a major subject like this is well served with the present article length. The real issue would be, is there excessive or redundant text, and/or lengthy text that is wholly tangential to the subject?  This doesn't seem to be the case. At any rate, I've replaced the term "impressment" by simply describing the affair in question by the actions used. e.g.captured. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Tbh, I didn't see that the Memory and historiography was spun out completely (I saw the edit but for some reason I thought it removed less), which does bring the article to a more respectable size (still hovers above 100kb, but trimmable at this point). Leventio (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The supposed POV concerns were discussed before. Editors agreed that the consensus in the literature is that the war ended in a draw. Also, there is no basis in policy to complain about the nationalities of the writers of sources used. As for kidnapping, we could consider another term, since we don't normally use it for government actions. We don't say for example that people falsely arrested were kidnapped. Indeed at the time, British law on American citizenship was not settled, so they may have seen impressment of American citizens as legal. TFD (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While I've heard a lot of claims that American citizens were at best innocent bycatch by British Captains, this is POV pushing from the other side. There are plenty of letters from American sons to their families about it. And there is ample proof from the Captains of said vessels that they were not that concerned about the nationality they grabbed. Ian W. Toll's book goes into the subject in some detail and he is far from the only one.Tirronan (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Toll (pp. 36, 70, 128, 181, etc) uses the verb "captured" in references to Americans, and American ships, in numerous instances. This is the term that is currently being used in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The major issue was whether British subjects (including Irishmen) could renounce their British subjectiveness when they became U.S. citizens. There was also the issue whether American citizens had ceased to be British subjects. Today, if an American leaves to join al Qaeda or Isis, the U.S. government may still consider them a citizen and charge them with treason. TFD (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * During times of war, a nation's right to retrieve its seamen from foreign navies, and to stop and search neutral vessels, was, and still is, internationally accepted. When you say POV pushing by "the other side", you are talking about the rest of the world. There were over 9000 seaman serving in the US navies that the Royal Navy considered British, and that was far too many sailors for either side to lose. The British did not consider simply claiming to be American proof of nationality and the US government refused to issue citizenship documents. The British made several attempts to come to some agreement over this but Jefferson and Madison were adamant that those serving on US vessels were to be considered American citizens without further proof. The assertion that the term kidnapping is not at all outlandish shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And as I mentioned, there was a view that American citizens continued to be British subjects. Indeed they were treated as such in Canada where they were allowed to own land and vote. (That included not only United Empire loyalists but also emigrants who had arrived long after the U.S. revolution.) The law was only settled in Doe V. Acklam 1824. In fact, with few exceptions, citizens of countries that achieved independence from Britain continued to be British subjects. TFD (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The captured citizens by an large were from America. That there may have been exceptions is really beside the point. The implication that the Americans just dreamed up an excuse to declare war on the U.K. is a bit ridiculous. The war didn't involve "the rest of the world". Like was attempted with the American Revolutionary War article, there seems to be an attempt to write off these major wars as but a chapter in British history as a way of rectifying their losses. One can embrace that rather narrow opinion if they feel the need but this is not how this war should be presented here in this article, about one war. The term "impressement" is grossly misleading and glosses over the idea that the sailors in question were outright captured, taken prisoner, shipped to a different country and forced to fight in someone else's war. "Impressment" generally involves a country getting its own citizen to fight in a war involving their own country, in the same manner the U.S. draft board once required young men to fight in an army of their own country. This was not at all the case when Americans were abducted and forced to fight in a war they had no interest in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned, most of these Americans were naturalized, which was not recognized and while the British made attempts - although not always - not to impress U.S. born citizens, it was not clear that it was illegal. TFD (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's sounds like a legal technicality at best, more likely an excuse, to steal goods and ships, and it would seem the captured sailors, "natutalized", or not, were being taken away from a county that was their home. Using the excuse of "natuaralized" only seems to exemplify the arrogance that was used to make off with these men, cargo and ships. The abduction of men and ships was also a direct attack on U.S. interests. In any case, the idea of "impressment", once again, glosses over the idea that the sailors in question were captured and taken away from what was considered their home as prisoners, shipped to a different country and forced to fight in a war they had no interest in. Again, the term captured is a simple verb, far more neutral that the rather ambiguous idea of "impressment". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The word capture is not neutral. We wouldn't normally refer to impressed sailors or conscripted soldiers as having been captured. The U.S. AFAIK has no provision for suspending the draft for its citizens residing abroad. TFD (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite to the contrary, we wouldn't normally refer to captured sailors and stolen cargo and ships as simple "impressement", which again, glosses over the idea that the men, cargo and ships were hauled off to a different country.  Anyone can perform a capture. The so called "impressment" didn't occur when the British boarded the ships, and the sailors in question were certainly not in a position to walk away. They were captured. "Impressement" means to recruit by force, but this term doesn't include the idea of abducting sailors at sea and confiscating ships and cargo. Follow the money. Since the U.K. had a far superior navy, they knew they could get away with it. We can use the term "impressement" as it involves the forcing of one to join an army, but again, the term doesn't begin to describe what happened overall. The article says "captured" 'and' "forced them to fight". i.e. Two different and specific actions. To gloss all this over would be a flagrant and misleading POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No-one wants to gloss over the issue but it needs to be presented in a neutral and balanced fashion. Although I don't object to the word capture, TFD is right, whether the sailors in question were British or American is debatable and entirely dependant on a point of view. To not mention that fact would be showing an appalling lack of neutrality.--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't personally find the term 'kidnapping' to be inaccurate for describing what happened to American sailors before and during the War of 1812, it appears there is some controversy over the use of the word. Several editors have expressed that the term 'kidnapping' is not generally used to describe actions carried out by governments, but I would counter that this is not always so: the extraordinary rendition of Fawaz Younis by the US government was described as a kidnapping by Slate's Tim Naftali thus: "The Reagan administration did not undertake this kidnapping lightly."
 * On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with the use of the term impressment. Several editors in the above thread have suggested that the term 'impressed' or 'impressment' is also misleading, as impressment is generally something a government does to its subjects or citizens. Needless to say, as a point of historical fact, these American sailors were not British subjects. I would suggest that anyone who is unconvinced of this fact ought to read this article. I would point out, however, that impressment was not universally visited upon subjects/citizens alone, and that the French actually 'impressed' several hundred American sailors during the decade prior to the War of 1812.
 * I say both terms are acceptably NPOV, but since neither term has universal support, I offer several alternatives that may be more acceptable to everyone. Instead of 'kidnapped,' what do you all think of:
 * -Abducted
 * -Shanghaied
 * -Forcibly shanghaied
 * -Taken hostage
 * Just as an aside, I'd like to mention that I really love this page. There's always such delightful controversy. Most articles mired in controversy have a very low average quality, but the War of 1812 has actually been improved by the demand editors place upon exactitude. That's my view, anyway. Joe  (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to have understood the issue.--Ykraps (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The soldiers in question were largely, if not mostly, Americans who were born and/or raised on America soil, and the captured ships and cargo were also from America. Why else would there be so much outrage among the Americans -- because the abducted sailors and the captured ships were mostly British? Again, that argument more than suggests that the Americans just dreamed up the issue and declared war on Britain for no reason. Again, a bit ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently the word impressment came into use after U.S. independence and was the agreed neutral term used by the U.S. and British governments. so if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers and the King's ministers, it should be good enough for us. TFD (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, my views are obviously tainted by a genetic tendency "to write off these major wars as but a chapter in British history as a way of rectifying their losses" and a general adoption of "narrow opinions". I've had similar discussions with my kids ie important to you, doesn't mean important to others, although they'd figured that out by the time they were 16.
 * Arguing over which word to use here is a comparatively minor issue in the context of a Lede which seems to be written by Pat Buchanan's slightly less open-minded younger brother.
 * On this specific issue, I'd strongly recommend looking at the ARW TP (archives included) and see the amount of time and energy a couple of individuals on this thread have been prepared to expend arguing "Auxiliary v mercenary" (short answer - "#$%^ing loads, and its wrong anyway"). Or the French Revolution article. In short, this could go on for some time.
 * As they say in Ireland, you might not want to start from here. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

POV that needs to be addressed

 * The lead is severely POV accusing Britain of having "...absconded with more than 15,000 American citizens" when the nationality was very much open to debate.
 * Sources:(N.A. M. Rodger The Command of the Ocean p.565) explains the issues regarding nationality at puts the number of seaman taken from US ships as 6,500 of which 3,800 were returned after satisfying the British that they were American citizens. (R. Knight, Britain Against Napoleon, pp.433-434), (Adkins, The War for all the Oceans, p.206)
 * The lead devotes a great deal of space to the issue while omitting to mention US plans of territorial aggrandizement, something numerous sources suggest was a primary cause of the war.
 * That it doesn't appear in the lead is self-evident. That the US wanted war to crate an opportunity to grab land - (R. Knight, Britain Against Napoleon, pp.434-435), (A. Lambert, The Challenge, p.32) (Adkins, The War for all the Oceans, p.374) (Hickey, The Forgotten Conflict, p.66), (Stagg, Conflict for a Continent, p.5)
 * The lead also suggests the British were violating international law by searching neutral ships, also up for debate.
 * Sources:(Frei, Broke and the Shannon, p51) (Hickey, The Forgotten Conflict, pp.12-13) (Stagg, Conflict for a Continent, pp.44-45)
 * The infobox gives the result as a draw, one of only several points of view held by historians.
 * The article is also somewhat unbalanced, pushing the nationalistic view of a second war of independence and national honour to the fore while playing down more mainstream causes and effects.
 * While the lead and the main body promote impressment as a major issue, it was actually subsiduary to a much larger argument over maritime rights.
 * Sources:(N.A. M. Rodger The Command of the Ocean p.565)
 * That the French also stopped US ships and at one time the US was considering war against France is not mentioned.
 * Sources:That the French also stopped US ships - (Mostert, The Line Upon the Wind, p.615) (A. Lambert, The Challenge, p28-29) (Hickey, The Forgotten Conflict, pp.16-18) That war against France was considered - (Latimer, War with America pp.25-26), (Stagg, Conflict for a Continent, p.26)
 * The Republicans who advocated war in response to Britain excersising her maritime rights were not repesentative of those in the maritime trade. They represented the agrarian south and inland areas and not the New England states that relied on trade, yet opposed the war. Hattendorf describes this anomalie as "curious". Lambert is less generous, pointing out that for those who relied on the land for their economy, war presented a golden opportunity to sieze more. I'm sure this has been discussed by other eminent historians so worth a mention, I think.
 * Sources:(Hattendorf, Broke and the Shannon p7), (A. Lambert, The Challenge, pp.2-3), (Stagg, Conflict for a Continent, p.5)
 * The article promotes a view that Britain was spoiling for a fight, outraged by the Little Belt affair and jealous of America's share of trade. That was certainly the view of the British public at the time, but the UK government did not want war with America and made a number of concessions in order to try and avoid it. This is played down to the point of non-existance.
 * Source:(Jeremy Black, The War of 1812 in the age of Napoleon p.xiii) (Lambert, The Challenge, p.41)
 * The article fails to mention that no part of the Ghent treaty had narrowed the definition of contraband (to munitions of war), nor prohibited mid-ocean paper blockades, nor limited the rights of belligerent's to stop and search neutral vessels in wartime. Instead, the article dismisses Britain's retention of her maritime rights as irrelevant.
 * Sources:(B. Arthur, How Britain Won the War of 1812, p.206), (Stagg, Conflict for a Continent, p.141)
 * The sources used are overwhelmingly American and whereas this isn't necessarily a problem on its own, because of aforementioned issues, shows the imbalance of the article.
 * The majority of the quotes in the article promote an American POV.
 * The language and tone of the article isn't neutral and examples of this include -
 * "....thereby defeating the United Kingdom's largest Native American ally, a primary war goal." (For whom?)
 * "....the Americans were able to end the impressment of their citizens" (The impressment was not ended by the Americans). As stated below - Impressment didn't end, it evolved into conscription. The Royal Navy stopped impressment after the Napoleonic Wars simply because they did not need sailors and no part of the Treaty of Ghent mentions impressment nor stop and search.
 * "....Albert Gallatin stated that 9,000 American sailors...." (Both Gallatin and Rodger used the term 'British' to describe these sailors). (N.A. M. Rodger The Command of the Ocean p.565) - The source is in the article but the sentence has been reworded to present a certain POV.

Until these points are addressed, I suggest that the POV template, which was removed without proper discussion, be reinstated.--Ykraps (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Above you list a number of claims about the article but have presented no actual sources, with page numbers, let alone quotes from these, that support your list of claims. The article is not lacking in sources and citations. If you are going to viably challenge a given statement it would help if you would do so by citing actual sources – and when a standing sourced statement is 'challenged' it should be done with more than one lone source. The idea that everything is open to debate and there is no certainty among historians is a recipe for perpetual debate. We can safely say that many if not most of the sailors were from America, and that the captured ships and cargo were from America, unless you're suggesting that Britain went out to sea to grab its own ships -- ships that were headed their way in the first place. As for American "aggrandizement", did this threaten British claims on territory in North America?  If the Americans didn't end the impressment -- who did? The British? The Indians? French?  I once heard a history professor claim that history concerning war is by and large written by the winners of war, to which I asked, what would history amount to if it was mostly written by the losers of war?  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that it would encourage you to do some reading. These are common themes in all good sources and fact they are not mentioned shows that the article is skewed. I am afraid that much of what I've read on the subject has long since been returned to the library and that is currently closed due to covid. However, I will see what I can dig up.
 * I really don't know what more I can say about the nationality issue, if you're not getting it, except that early in 1807 (before the Chesapeake-Leopard affair) American forces boarded a British warship to retrieve some British subjects that had deserted from their navy.(The Command of the Ocean, N. A. M. Rodger, p.566) Presumably, your partisan view is that these deserters were actually American citizens. I only want it recognised that nationality was very much debatable.
 * Impressment didn't end, it evolved into conscription. The Royal Navy stopped impressment after the Napoleonic Wars simply because they did not need sailors. No part of the Treaty of Ghent mentions impressment nor stop and search. The right to press, in the form it was during the 1812 War, continued until at least 1835.[] --Ykraps (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't appreciate your assumption that I haven't done much reading. If you feel an idea is not covered, or not covered well enough, it would help matters if you spoke in specifics, simply outlined such ideas, and presented any sources that substantiate these things. No doubt there were some (few, many?) who deserted from the British navy, but this proved to be an excuse to go ahead and making sweeping captures of all the men aboard the ships in question, not to mention the ships and cargoes also. This was the major reason why war was declared. It would seem all else were secondary consideration.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The reasons America went to war is a well-discussed topic. The British made a number of concessions to pacify America, and having felt they had dealt with all grievances, were surprised when America declared war (Command of the Ocean p.566) (as were many Americans!) As for the ships and cargoes, the ships were returned and the owners received payment, through a process known as pre-emption, for any conditional contraband confiscated. A neutral ship could lawfully, only be captured it if fled, destroyed papers, or resisted search. (Broke and the Shannon p.54) I am sorry if you're offended, your need to have everything thing referenced led me to believe you hadn't heard any of this before. My apologies.--Ykraps (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Though there doesn't appear to be any erroneous POV in the article, imo, it is indeed under dispute, which can't be denied – so in all fairness to that idea, I have added the POV tag again, until we can better pursue the issues in question. As said, given the wide variety of sources, it seems we will be embarking on another reliable sources contest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ykraps, a brief check shows me that most of the issues you brought up are extensively sourced in the article. If you have a problem with a specific source as being unreliable, or if you have an alternative RS that contradicts one of the current sources, please bring it up here. I do not currently find the article to be WP:POV, definitely not to the point of requiring a tag. Joe  (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to redirect to the impressment issue. The British stance was that once a subject of the crown, it could not be renounced. America held the stance that once a US Citizen you were a citizen, either by birth or by naturalization. Entire chapters of most books on the Wat of 1812 have been given to the subject. If that needs to be brought more into the light in the article so be it. There was talk about declaring war on both France and England and again I agree that should be pointed out. Large maritime powers had tendencies that would be considered almost piratical in today's view. Prizes were taken to an admiralty court where the decision was almost a foregone conclusion as the courts, the country, and the ship involved in the capture all got paid for doing so. This was the case in both England and France at the time. In the case of impressment, it worked very much the same. There was no way to tell by dress or accent, the nationality of a natural-born American seaman or his British counterpart. Once impressed said sailor could appeal to the English court for a ruling. Doing so required said sailor to work for free until a ruling was made. That could take years. I fail to see why this is POV? We keep pressing 21st-century views at a very different time. That just doesn't work. There were daily hangings in London for stealing food. It was OK for American's to own slaves. It sounds like you are defending 19th century Britain for practices that at the time were pretty much business as usual. It wasn't just Britain, it was every single major maritime power of the era. Tirronan (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I well appreciate your sense of presentism. Indeed many people in the present tend to narrowly judge the affairs of people 100+ years ago as they sit in the comfort of their modernized homes, and in a day where basic freedoms, survival and protection from foreign invasion are too often taken for granted. In any event, the Americans declared war on the British because men, ships and cargo were being captured and hauled off to Britain on a very large scale. We can deliberate forever how the British felt about their self proclaimed 'legal right' to capture men, but the stealing of ships and cargo was still a major factor also. The fact remains, the Americans declared war because of the ongoing practice of the capturing of men, ships and cargo. British attempts in keeping alliances alive with many American Indian tribes, and their designs on Canada played a role, but these objectives did not fuel nearly the same amount of outrage among the Americans as did the abduction of men, ships and cargo.  At the same time, however, I've no issues with any coverage involving how the British felt they had this right to conduct themselves in such a fashion, the apparent arrogance of which no doubt only served to throw gas on the fire. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Horrible we lost our resident expert in the field because of this junk pov. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What? Plz explain? Joe  (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Rjensen explains how wiki editors refought the war of 1812 -- at youtude. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

POV continued...
I feel the POV tag was misplaced, which, after some brief talk, was removed by myself. After listening to some other views, and further considering that a POV issue was indeed still in dispute, I restored the POV tag a couple of days ago, albeit, reluctantly. If after a few more days no one has offered any proposals, per sources, above and beyond claims made here in Talk, with the idea of adding needed balance to the narrative, we can remove the tag once again. Given the wide variety of sources used in this article, it seems it's a bit difficult to substantiate the idea that a POV exists in a capacity that warrants tagging the entire article, even though it may not cover some lesser points. Sometimes it's more appropriate to simply add a or  notation to any given statement in question. has outlined a number of items that the article might do well with, and has provided sources for them. I'll see what i can do about incorporating some of these things into the article, keeping balance and due weight in mind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If I might suggest that we replace kidnapping with impressment, or impressed? In fact, that was what happened and both sides used that term. The RN was not holding Americans for ransom after all.Tirronan (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

We should keep the idea of 'captured' in place, but we can also say many of the captives were later "impressed". To use the term "impressement", by itself, again, glosses over the idea that men were indeed captured, along with ships and cargo, and hauled off to Britain on a massive scale. The actual impressment occurred after the capturing of men, ships and cargo. The question, however, still remains, that how many of the men who were deemed British subjects, still considered themselves American, who were taken away from their homes in America? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, kidnapping is not appropriate for this article. Secondly, with the Napoleonic Wars soon to end, the need for a massively expanded Royal Navy was over. Anyone impressed against his will would have been released shortly thereafter. Britain found the RN expensive enough. The sailors were impressed we are not here to right wrongs. The term is provocative. I'm going to echo Moxy here. This article has been dragged down the road enough.Tirronan (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Specific issues that need to be addressed

 * "The article is horribly unbalanced, pushing the nationalistic view of a second war of independence and national honour to the fore while playing down more mainstream causes and effects such as Britain's maritime rights and the US desires of territorial aggrandizement." - Ykraps

How is it that the Americans, with their far inferior navy, were in a position to thwart British maritime rights? This hardly seems like a major cause of the war. Also, was not American independence in jeopardy, esp when the British burned Buffalo in 1813, Sackets Harbor in 1814, and the capitol in Washington, also in 1814 - not to mention the burning or capture of several America forts? Are we to assume the British would not have reclaimed their lost colonies if they had the chance? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There were two issues with regards to maritime rights. The American merchant marine were making a fortune from illegal trading with France. Under the internationally agreed rules of the time, a neutral country could not conduct trade with a beligerant if the trade in question was closed to them before the war started. America was trading on behalf of (not with) France by bringing stuff from the French West Indies to France because the French couldn't do it themselves as all their ships were blockaded in port. In times of peace the French would not have allowed the Americans to do this, therefore it was illegal and definitely not neutral! To get around this illegality, American ships would stop at a US port, unload the goods, pay a nominal fee, reload them, and then re-export them to France. Naturallly the British sought to close this loophole off !
 * The British and the Americans both viewed nationality differently, the British viewed it as the country in which one was born while the Americans thought you could become naturalized after a period of residency (at that time, 14 years) although both changed their minds from time to time to suit, see for examle, the supreme court ruling in the 1795 case of Talbot v Jansen (and of course, there was all that palaver in 1861). This was all complicated (perhaps deliberately) by the US governments refusal to issue naturalization papers, the ready availability of false papers, and the fact that both nationalities looked and sounded the same. The British attempted to get some agreement on this but the US government were reluctant to discuss it because the American merchant fleet relied on British sailors to man it.  Albert Gallatin estimated that there were 9,000 British seaman in the US navies at that time.
 * I am absolutely astounded that you don't know all this already, they are common themes in all sources, so I'm going to ask directly, which books have you read?
 * No! American independence was never threatened and the British had no plans to reclaim their lost colonies.--Ykraps (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The article makes constant reference to the taking of American citizens when the Royal Navy only impressed those considered to be British subjects. Mistakes were made but anyone who later proved to be an American citizen was returned." - Ykraps

As explained, more than men were just abducted -- ships and cargo were also. The British did not make any determination as to American citizenship while they were rounding up men wholesale and hauling them off to Britain. If the British returned U.S. citizens this had to be long after the fact. However, I've no issue with mentioning that American citizens were returned, but in the context that it was too little too late. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They were not rounded up wholesale! In the case of Chesapeake, they took four. If they weren't making any attempt to determine the nationality, they would've taken a lot more. How is it that I am required to reference everything I say but you are allowed to make a crass comment like that?!
 * The ships could only be taken legally if they tried to run, failed to produce papers or refused to submit to a search. RN captains were actually extremely careful when taking ships because any mistakes were paid for by the captain himself.
 * Only contraband could be taken, of which there was two types: absolute contraband such as arms and ammunition, and conditional contraband (wood for shipbuilding, food for troops etc). Obviously there were problems deciding whether these items were contraband or not so the British made decisions based on the destination of these items. So, for example, wood destined for a shipbuilding port would be conditional contraband but for anywhere else, would be considered legitimate. Again, mistakes were paid for by the captain. In addition, through a system known as pre-emption, conditional contraband was sold in British markets and the American ship owners received the money.
 * With regards to the number of impressed men, what makes PBS a reliable source, and what are the qualifications of the so-called 'history detectives'? I ask because that 15,000 figure is more than twice what other sources say! Rodger gives the figures at 6,500 of which 3,800 satisfied the British that they were Americans, and were released (although he admits that some older sources put the figures higher), Lambert says less than 10% (which, at the time, would equate to about 7,000), Bickham also says 6,500.
 * When the Madison administration was asked to produce a list, they did so on hearsay evidence, and even by duplicating names, could not come up with more than 6,500 (which, I think is where Bickham gets the figure).--Ykraps (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "There is a disproportionate number of quotes by American historians promoting an American point of view." -- Ykraps

No one is stopping any editor from including quotes from British historians. In fact, I'd welcome them, in proportion to those of American historians. Let's bear in mind that both American and British sources often cover the history in a neutral and objective capacity. American historian Donald Hickey, with several of his works used in this article, gives us an excellent example. Some British quotes would give the serious reader insights into the varied views among historians, and would serve to exemplify the differences between the Americans and British which led to war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ykraps, this has, as has been explained before been gone over and over again and again. Please visit the archived pages for all the explanations and arguments. I refuse to do this again. Then when you are ready to present RS quotations in support of your positions I'd be happy to discuss this. This is a small war that didn't and doesn't hold a lot of interest by British historians. The two that come to mind are James, who has been thoroughly discredited on his work, and Lambert who is pretty accurate on RN matters but lost when it comes to the political side. This was a small war but a complex one. Military history on this is complete, but both sides show a complete lack of understanding of logistics and operational art, throughout the campaigns. Unless you have a thorough understanding of American politics of the time, You are going to be handicapped. Readings of the Parliment is also highly recommended.
 * The quote has been taken out of context. As I said above, "...whereas this isn't necessarily a problem on its own, because of aforementioned issues, shows the imbalance of the article". What I was trying to say is that because of the POV in the article, it accentuates appearance of bias. I am not denigrating American sources, and in fact, much of what I have said here features prominently in them.
 * I would avoid, James and Roosevelt and stick to tertiary sources.--Ykraps (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Statements like the "Second War of Independence" and "National Honor" were used by the Republican Democrats to justify the war. It was mostly bought into by the public at the time. It in no way should be used in the article without a background to explain it. Frankly, it was justification for a war bubbled into without enough reason.Tirronan (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It certainly shouldn’t be so prominent in the lead, especially as other cause are not given any coverage.--Ykraps (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Tirronan, even after all the past talk, there was a POV tag still in the article, which had/has to be addressed. As mentioned, men who were deemed to be American citizens may have been released by the British, but this certainly didn't happen immediately, and again, many so called British subjects were taken from their homes in America, while many ships and cargoes were also captured. Britain still had a superior navy and regardless of the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, continued to dominate the high seas through the 19th century. The British burned the city of Buffalo to the ground, burned Sackett's Harbor, invaded Washington and torched the capitol building, all the while they imposed a blockade, for openers. This was obviously a threat to American sovereignty, or independence, and it's no stretch of the imagination for many to see it that way. Otoh, it would seem that the denial of this prospect would pose a more serious POV issue than any reference to a threatened American independence ever would. If you have been through many such debates it would be helpful if you added more of your input, rather than taking exception to the present debate and telling the rest of us what we need to read. The discussion was and is still needed in light of the persistent POV tag at the top of this article. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Specific issues continued...

 * "That the French also stopped US ships and at one time the US was considering war against France is not mentioned." - Ykraps

The French, after supporting the Americans during their Revolution, felt betrayed by the Jay Treaty which largely favored Britain and who responded by, as D. Hickey (1989) puts it, "unleashing her warships and privateers on American commerce", which led to the Quasi War, which ended in 1801, years before the War of 1812. Any action by the French against American commerce during the war of 1812 was negligible compared to the large scale assault by the British on American shipping. That the article doesn't mention this is hardly a POV issue, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Quasi War, did not solve the problem, it only provided a temporary reprieve while Napoleon was in a precarious position! The French, being mostly under blockade, were not able to project their power across the Atlantic but in European waters French frigates systematically burned American grain ships bound for Britain (yes, the US were trading with Britain too). They impounded American merchant ships and locked up American sailors as POWs without any compensation whatsoever.--Ykraps (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The article is horribly unbalanced, pushing the nationalistic view of a second war of independence and national honour." - Ykraps

Not true. Please read the Honour and the second war of independence. All statements are taken from quotes by several historians. Though the idea is compelling and has some merit, the article does not present the idea as absolute fact. e.g. 'The War of 1812 was American's second war for independence'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The honour and the second war of independence theory is featured in the lead as the sole cause of the war, and has been pushed to the top of the page in the main body. This is self-evident.--Ykraps (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of any sort of "Independence" in the lede, and once again, all mention of "independence" is done so via quotes, esp since many reliable sources refer to this as such. In the Honour and the "second war of independence" section the term in the section title has also been placed in quotes. This "theory", to repeat, is not without its merits as the British conducted wide spread invasions on American soil, burned cities, including the capitol building, captured and/or burnt down many forts, continued their efforts to incite Indians against the Americans and maintained a blockade during the course of the war -- this after capturing men, ships and cargo on a massive scale. Of course it was a question of honor and independence in the American's attempt to end this. Nothing amazing. You seem to want to remove any mention of this idea from the article entirely, and indeed you refer to the idea as a "theory", therefore, it could also be said that the British were not attempting to overthrow the country and regain their lost colonies – is also a theory. Were not the British trying to regain their honor after losing the Revolutionary War to a nation of farmers and merchants? You spoke of "other causes" of the war, a war which was declared by the Americans. What were Britain's pressing causes, and why didn't they declare war if they were so pressing?  No one is stopping anyone from adding these ideas, per reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You may or may not have noticed that no one is talking to you anymore. I have no intention of entering another blog-a-thon. How about you just put up your proposed changes and we can get to a vote on it? Tirronan (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought that is what I was doing! Specifically then, I propose:


 * That references to American citizens, where the nationality was disputed, be replaced by a more neutral term, such as 'sailors from American ships' or something similar.
 * That the term neutral trade be replaced by 'supplies to France' or something that doesn't suggest this was a neutral thing to do.
 * That Britain did not attempt to stop all trade with France, only what it saw as contraband, is explained in the article.
 * That the stop and search of ships from neutral countries in times of war, was an internationally accepted practice, be included.
 * That, in times of war, a nations right to reclaim its seamen from foreign navies was internationally accepted, be added to the article.
 * That the pre-emption process whereby American ship owners were compensated for their losses, is explained in the article.
 * That the 15,000 figure be removed from the lead or at least downgraded to the 6000-7000 quoted in scholarly sources.
 * Add that more than half (or 3,800) were returned after satisfying the British of their nationality.
 * That the relevant parts of the rule of 1756 be explained in the article.
 * That the US had agreed to abide by that rule when they signed the Jay Treaty, is added.
 * That American ships attempted to circumvent it by re-exporting, is added to the article.
 * That attempts to resolve the issue of impressment, are mentioned in the article.
 * That America was reluctant to agree terms because it feared the loss of too many men, should also be included.
 * Explain that Albert Gallatin was concerned about the impact on the US navies, if the RN reclaimed all the sailors they considered British.
 * That US interpretation of international law is clearly noted as interpretation.
 * That the US had the same squabbles with France, to be noted.
 * Add that war with France was a consideration.
 * It should be noted that the treaty of Ghent did nothing to narrow the definition of contraband to munitions of war, nor limit the rights of belligerent's to stop and search neutral vessels in wartime, two major causes of the war.
 * Remove the sentence, "....the Americans were able to end the impressment of their citizens" as this is simply untrue.
 * Add that Britain did not want war with the US and sought to avoid it.
 * Move the Honour and second war of independence sub-heading down in the Origin section to at least below that of Impressment and naval actions and possibly below British support for Techumseh a) because those sections partly explain what the US was so het up about, and b) to better reflect its secondary importance.
 * Add that feelings relating to honour and independence were not universal among Americans.
 * Is that clearer? --Ykraps (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Tirronan– Your cheap shot aside, you brought up several points, which I took the time to address. If you feel that at this point you can't be bothered and have no inclination as to helping the present discussion, which is warranted, given the POV tag which I did not originally add to the article, then you know where the door is friend. Thanks for all your encouragement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ykraps - Yes, thanks for taking the time to talk this through and list the specific issues. Please feel free to add any neutral edits or comments as supported by reliable sources. As for this quote(?}: "....the Americans were able to end the impressment of their citizens" I searched for this quote in the article and can't seem to find it. Above you mention that it went from "impressement" to "conscription", which is pretty much the same thing – someone who's conscripted is not free to decline. In any case, the Americans, yes, not all of them, but those willing to fight off the British, clearly felt, given the wide spread destruction, that their country's independence was threatened, and that defending this was naturally a matter of honor. (Every war had its dissenters, including the Blue light federalists, and if there were enough of them, and represented in Congress, there would have been no official war.) We can add the British POV, but this idea by no means should be removed or obscured in this article, given all the sources that tough on that likely idea.  Also, this "internationally accepted practice" was obviously not accepted by the Americans, and, given the large scale of men, ships and cargo that were hauled off, was very likely used as a pretext to make off with the goods. If the owners in question were indeed compensated, this needs to be articulated accurately, and with more than just one British historian. No one knew at the time that, after repeated occurrences, the British had any intention of compensating anyone, and it remains to be seen just how thoroughly this "compensation" was effected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"I was unaware that I had taken a cheap shot. If I did so you have my apology. 1. American citizens that claim they are citizens and also by the government are citizens. That is pretty universal. The fact that it was contested by Great Britain and the United States should be explained. 2. National interest of both sides should be noted visa via the trade issues. It doesn't require special terms. 3. Stop and search at the time of the War of 1812 should have been conducted upon attempting to enter a port under a close blockade. The RN often would do so outside of American ports. I would see this as attempting to whitewash provocative behavior. 4. This issue had been a matter of multiple attempts by America to resolve the matter. They failed in every attempt until shortly before the declaration of war. Unfortunately, they was no transatlantic cable at the time or the war would not have happened. 5. Actually America offered to allow Britain to take sailors when American ships entered British ports, which sooner or later they always did. That was refused. It has often been noted by historians that the sentiment was "If they didn't want their ships seized then they should have a Navy to defend their rights" again typical of major sea powers at the time. Again this resolved around citizenship. Britsh historians have noted that the intent was entirely one-sided. Again this whitewashed a provocative action by the RM. 6. As I explained before, while in theory there was a reclamation process, in fact, the system rewarded keeping all that was seized. Again this was not only an RN issue France did so and America did during the war. It was common practice and a profitable one. 7 Ont the number of sailors impressed we'd have to compare citations. I'm more than happy to get it right. Please do not quote James to me he lied a lot. The number I have is 15,835. 8. the rule of 1756, applied when Britain wanted it to. Through most of the 32-month conflict, they were more than happy to trade American staples to Feed Wellington's army. However, getting to the meat of the trade conflict would be an article of its own and a long one at that. 8. As to the issues with France it should be noted in summary I have no issue with it. I would include that War with France was considered. 9. As to the Jay Treaty, again no more than a sentence or two should be brought up. This article is probably already far to long. 10. All neutral trade nations had a similar view. Denmark suffered for that as well. Such are nations at war. However, if you want to include it both interpretations would have to be told in a sentence. 11. Re-exportation was an issue that should be addressed but should be very short. It was accepted for a while but both the PM at the time and British Merchant pressure changed that. I agree that it should be included but should be kept short. 12. Your assertion that America didn't end impressment is technically correct. It was not addressed by the Treaty of Ghent. Nor did the RN formally forbid the practice. That said the 100 days flared up and the RN was as in a desperate need as ever for sailors. Historian Ian Toll noted that the RN went to great pain to ensure it did not impress Americans. In other words yes they kept the right to impress but wouldn't impress Americans or American ships. Color it anyway you want but the practice was stopped. America wasn't going to awe the RN by its size but proved to be a pain in the behind that was never eliminated during the war. It was also noted in high British military circles that if they went to war again they'd lose the Canadian colonies. 13. "That America was reluctant to agree to terms because it feared the loss of too many men, should also be included." You have lost me there on this one.

Tirronan (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside your comments about James for the moment; Troy Bickham (The Weight of Vengeance) says that the Madison administration was asked for a list of the 'American citizens' taken. They produced one using entirely hearsay evidence, with 6,500 names, some of which had been duplicated, and included those that had legitimately volunteered. Rodger (The Command of the Ocean) also says 6,500. Lambert (The Challenge) says less than 10%, which is roughly in agreement with Bickham and Rodger; the American merchant marine employing around 70,000 sailors at the time. What are your sources? (please don't say Roosevelt).
 * That "the rule of 1756, applied when Britain wanted it to" is a ridiculous comment. The British would not have considered trade with them to be 'trading with the enemy'. That would have been a matter for the French to take up, which they did by burning American grain ships.
 * With regards to my last comment, which has lost you, I was referring to the US governments reluctance to issue papers on the advice of Albert Gallatin. Even using the US interpretation of citizen, there was still a considerable number of British subjects on American ships that would have to be returned. Gallatin, who was concerned about this loss, thought it better not to come to an agreement. When an agreement was reached in 1807, Jefferson chose not to put it before congress.--Ykraps (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've reread the 1756 law. Which led to the re-export, and I've already said it should be mentioned briefly.
 * There is little use talking to me about James, he isn't well regarded as a historian.
 * As to the numbers impressed, that was why I left a citation for your examination.Tirronan (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tirronan I took the liberty of adding breaks to your above listing which was all run together - hope this is okay with you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said to Ykraps, I have no issue with presenting all POVs. Between you and Ykraps, who seem to have more than a passing knowledge of the war, and its sources, I'm not understanding why neither of you have not made many edits, or additions, to the numerous issues/statements in question. As you are no doubt aware, this controversy has been going on since the end of that war. This is why I recently added this statement to the lede. Both American and British POVs are welcomed here, so long as no one tries to remove or obscure either one. When controversial subjects are involved I have always tried to deal with matters by saying, in effect, Historian Smith maintains that 'this' is the way the event unfolded, while Historian Adams notes that 'that' is the way it occurred.  No doubt differing accounts will often share a common ground, and one from which we should proceed. Also, I'd be careful in making any highly critical claim about a widely recognized historian, like William James.  Upon examination, I noticed that all such citations are used in conjunction with at least two other corroborating citation/sources. Best to deal with matters on a per citation basis. POV issues aside, the article does need work, as many citations lack page numbers.  As for the article length, this was never an issue for me. Most readers only read the lede, and those that read further start at the TOC and jump to the various sections that interest them. Just a mention, you appear to be quoting me in item #13 in your last edit here in Talk, though I'm sure I've never made such a statement and can't find it here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As to the last line, I was replying to Ykraps who had a bullet point on that. I didn't and still don't have a clue what he was talking about. But I did want him to know that I at least looked at it. When we know what we are dealing with precisely, it is easy to deal with. Every editor on this page has been exhausted by a gentleman that was difficult to deal with to be kind. Thirteen years' worth of it to be exact. So if I and others seem terse, now you know the reason.Tirronan (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't made any edits to the article because a) I was waiting for some kind of agreement, and b) I have been extremely busy working. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your POV) I haven't had to spend a prolonged period at home with nothing to do. I am happy to pick away at this article, under your watchful eyes, and discuss any issues on the talk page.--Ykraps (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If neutral edits are made in accord with the sources, esp as concerns the established facts, I don't foresee any major difficulties. I have been adding elements of neutrality to the article over the last few days. Being an American I naturally hold a measure of national bias, but I like to believe it is based on the truth. The last thing I ever want is to advance an untruth while waving a flag, and I'm sure most British and other editors are on that page also. As said, I believe all the accounts share a good measure of common ground, and from that point we can mention any variances that may occur. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

4.1 Unpreparedness
Suggested minor edit for second to last sentence of section 4.1 "and New England states made loud threats to secede as evidenced by the Hartford Convention." That isn't evidenced by the Hartford Convention itself and even the convention's page disputes how much secession was considered. Perhaps something more broad? "and New England states openly opposed the war, as evidenced by the Hartford Convention." Conversely, it could be made more specific to some of the New England Federalists who did mention secession, or Madison's concerns regarding secession or a separate treaty with Britain. However, that's covered elsewhere and brevity may be in order for this one sentence. 136.49.46.186 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the existing citation, Heidler, 1997, only offers snippit views on line. However, Hickey, 1998, devotes am entire chapter (Chapter 10, pp.255-280) to this subject, as does Ingersoll, 1845, (Vol II, Chapter 10, pp. 216-249) Neither of these works cover the idea of succession but rather stress the ideas of Federalist attempts to curb Republican powers, esp as concerns their commerce policies. A few of the more extreme delegates bandied the idea of succession around, but most focused on the idea of "Madison's war", the perceived imbalance of power between parties as concerns war funding, and commerce. We should consult some other sources before we make any significant edits covering the convention and the idea of succession. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

British "Commanders and Leaders"
While the Prime Minister and George Prévost's presence on the list makes sense, is Robert Ross senior enough to warrant a mention here? Particularly when Admirals John Borlase Warren & Alexander Cochrane, the two Naval CinCs (with control of British strategy, key to British success in the war) are not mentioned? Similarly, the driving force behind British ventures in the Chesapeake was George Cockburn (similarly absent). F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The U.S. side has Jackson and Harrison, who were also regional commanders and major-generals. Maybe we should remove them too. Although they were the best known U.S. generals of the war, they were not the most senior. TFD (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Ross should be there as should John Borlase Warren & Alexander Cochran. You might consider adding the US Secretary of the Navy as a counterweight.Tirronan (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there a guideline for this? For World War II, there are no generals listed at all. If we followed that, we would only have Madison for the U.S. For the UK, that would probably be the PM (the Earl of Liverpool) and perhaps the Commander in Chief of British North America (Prevost.) TFD (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem the WW ii article needs some serious work if there are no generals mentioned. How does one cover the battles comprehensively if the commanders are not even mentioned? It would be like not mentioning Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee in the American Civil War article. Not mentioning any generals or Admirals in this article would serve no purpose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Grant and Lee are the only two military leaders mentioned in the Civil War info-box. Grant was Commanding General of the U.S. Army, while Lee was General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States. So their position was similar to Prevost, which is why I mentioned him. But I don't think there was a military commander of U.S. forces in the War of 1812, other than the Madison, who was commander in chief. TFD (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue with the WWII info box is that there is such an abundance of military commanders to be mentioned (although these could be skimmed down to Zhukov, Alanbrooke & Marshall as the directors of strategy, once political leaders are mentioned), whereas with the War of 1812 we have a bit more freedom. I think directors of strategy & commanders in chief should be the priority, with local commanders mentioned second (if at all)...at least as far as the British side is concerned. Thus we ought to save space by removing Ross, and adding Warren & Cochrane. I am open to leaving Brock, as by all accounts he demonstrated significant independence & initiative from Prévost and was key to shaping the war in Upper Canada/America's Western Frontier. F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would simplify matters if, for every major and famous battle, the commanders are mentioned and linked once within a simple statement. This would also increase the reading in the given articles for those commanders while adding comprehensiveness to this article. History buffs and the serious student will welcome this, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If we are going to list military officials below the rank of commander in chief, I suggest we list all the generals and admirals and on both sides (excluding brigadiers.) List of major generals in the United States Regular Army before 1 July 1920 lists all the U.S. generals. I believe that major general was also the highest rank for British officers in North America. That way the list would be succinct and consistent. TFD (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe Grant was the 1st Lieutenant General in the US Army. Anyway, I concur.Tirronan (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So the British officers would be Lt. Gen. Sir George Prévost, Maj. Generals Sir Isaac Brock, Sir Roger Sheaffe and Sir Edward Pakenham, Admirals Sir John Borlase Warren and Sir Alexander Cochrane, and Rear Admiral Sir George Cockburn. TFD (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said, we should only list the commanders who were involved in the major battles and campaigns, regardless of their exact rank. Rank alone should not be the determining factor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

All the British flag officers were involved in major battles. Furthermore, the U.S. created the position of major general specifically for officers commanding troops in the War of 1812. Bear in mind, this wasn't like todays' forever wars where the U.S. has hundreds of generals who never leave their offices in the Pentagon. Both British North America and the United States were totally involved in the war. TFD (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it seems you're agreeing with my proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Names in the info box
There were several names removed from the info-box that were not even mentioned in the article. These include, Hillis Hadjo (Red Stick), who was hanged long after the war,  John Norton (Mohawk chief),  John Brant (Mohawk leader) and Gordon Drummond. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed
While we're all striving to maintain neutrality and objectivity in the article we should not lose sight of the article's general quality. I.e.There is currently 37 tags, not to mention 9 many  tags, that need our attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 'I've added two more. I'll keep plugging away.Tirronan (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

George III
Is there any reason why George III, who is mentioned at least nine times in the American Revolutionary War is not mentioned at all in this article? He was still king, although his son the Prince Regent had assumed his responsibilities. But the Prince Regent isn't mentioned either. TFD (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strange, I don't remember him being discussed at all in the histories.Tirronan (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * George III was permanently insane and locked away at Windsor castle from about 1811 until his death. So that isn’t surprising. As for the future George IV, yeah that should be looked into... but I think his style as regent was fairly muted.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:3945:E1A6:964E:C941 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, it was a regency. However, since some editors claimed he was an absolute monarch one would expect that his henchmen in the cabinet and parliament would continue to follow his son. It would be as if articles about North Korea after the death of Kim Il Sung didn't mention Kim Jong Il or Kim Jong Un. TFD (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with TFD, that there should be at least a couple of brief statements covering who was the ruler, and any significant involvements he may have had during the War of 1812, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @TFD the British parliamentary system was well developed by 1812, and you'd find it very hard to convince anyone that every single minister of the king were mere lackey "henchmen", even prior to the great reform act of 1832. The king of England by 1812 was not some Kim family type figure. Fault-ridden, abusive and oppressive (largely towards its then colonial subjects and its own exploited, disenfranchised working class...) as the system was, it was still well on its way towards becoming one of the more liberal constitutional monarchies out there. As for finding and assessing sources around what the Prince Regent and his cabinet-of-sorts had to say (I am not terribly well versed on the regency period) or "do" during the war, this might be harder to do than one would think, owing to how the histography and general interest in the war is somewhat neglected, for obvious reasons. I only know about the war of 1812 because I grew up here.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Single ship actions
Although not a sloop, the gun-brig Boxer was taken by the brig-sloop Enterprise in a bloody battle where Enterprise emerged the victor again due to superior force.[citation needed], This line bothers me a lot. As best as I can tell the ships were close in size. The Boxer lost a mast in the 1st broadside, which did cause her loss. I'm changing it shortly.Tirronan (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replaced that line with this: The only engagement between two brig-sloops was between the British Cruizer-class brig Pelican (1812) and the United States' Argus where Pelican emerged the victor as she had greater firepower and tonnage, despite having less crew. USS Enterprise, a sloop that had been converted to a brig, took the HMS Boxer a Bold-class gun-brig. The ships were of a comparable size HMS Boxer 181 tons BM, vs. the USS Enterprise at 165 tons BM. The crew size was disproportionate at 66 men on the Boxer, and 120, on the Enterprise. Uss Enterprise led a chasing Boxer out on run then turned and let fly at 10 yards. The Boxer replied at the same time. The Boxer's captain was killed instantly. The Enterprise's captain received a mortal wound. Gunnery was better on the Enterprise, demasting Boxer. Unable to reply when Enterprise took up a raking position, Boxer surrendered.[186]


 * I'm asking that any further editing of this section stop. I'm going to start rewriting it tomorrow. It just reeks. Given that the article is under review I'll put it up here 1st. Half the statements sound like they need "because everyone knows that the Royal Navy would have won otherwise" sheesh. I'll keep it to the facts.Tirronan (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section can be trimmed, particularly because most of these actions have there own article. However, the disparity in size and armament is thoroughly discussed in all the sources so it is clearly an important factor that should be included. Your editorialising isn't helpful by the way. Perhaps you could stick with the opinions of historians and leave yours to one side for the time being.--Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The captains of any ship in any war will go after the enemy if there is a chance of winning. Sometimes, even if there is not. These were not formal duels under the code duelo. Worse, the citations don't have page numbers so we might check.


 * Both Americans and British felt their navies' honour had been challenged prior to the war. The United States took the Chesapeake–Leopard affair and the Royal Navy's impressment of sailors as an insult and felt it could redeem itself by duelling. Similarly, the British felt their honour was challenged in the Little Belt affair where the United States frigate President fired on the British sloop HMS Little Belt, mistaking it for the British frigate HMS Guerriere. Captain James Dacres of Guerriere began a cycle of frigate duels by challenging President to a single ship duel to avenge the losses aboard Little Belt. Commodore John Rodgers of President declined the challenge because he feared that the rest of the British squadron under Commodore Philip Broke might intervene.[186][187][188]

I'm replacing it with this.


 * The more recent builds of the US Navy in this war were built and intended to overmatch their opponents. The United States of America did not believe that it could build a large enough navy to contest with the Royal Navy. As such where it could be done, ships were built to be tougher, larger, and carry more firepower, than the opposition. Naval ships do not fight by the code of the duel, they are national instruments of war, and are used as such. The Royal Navy counted on its numbers, experience, and traditions. As the US Navy found itself mostly blockaded by the end of the war, the Royal Navy was correct. That being said, in single-ship actions the Royal Navy ships often found themselves against larger ships, larger crews, that were better trained. The Royal Navy in maintaining a 600 fleet of ships was overstretched, undermanned, and, with a few exceptions, less practiced at its guns. The three 44 gun US frigates were designed to demolish the 36 to 38 gun frigates that were by far the majority of the world's navies. The Wasp Class ship sloops again were an over-match to the Cruizer Class Brigs. For all the fame that these actions received, they in no way affected the outcome of the results of Atlantic theater of War. The final count of frigates lost was three on each side, with most of the US Navy blockaded in port.Tirronan (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm putting this up for comment and I'll be adding the citation with everyone's approval.Tirronan (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Next: Meanwhile, USS Constitution commanded by Captain Isaac Hull sailed from the Chesapeake Bay on. On 17 July, Commodore Broke's British squadron, including Guerriere, gave chase off New York, but Constitution evaded them after two days. Broke detached Guerriere from his squadron to seek out repairs as she had weak scantlings (Beams fastened with a thickened clamp rather than vertical and horizontal knees)[192] and had become leaky and rotten.[193][194] She had also been struck by lightning, severely damaging her masts.[193] Captain Dacres was eager to engage the American frigate and to redeem British honour as Constitution was the sister ship of President and would serve equally well as an American ship to duel. Constitution had nearly 50 percent more men, more firepower, heavier tonnage and heavier scantlings (this determines how much damage enemy shot does to a ship) than Guerriere.[195]

Replaced with" 19 August 1812, 2pm 750 miles east of Boston USS Constitution sighted HMS Guerriere. After maneuvering for advantage both ships were at broadsides at a range of 75 yards at 6:00pm The 1st broadsides were delivered at 6:05pm. The result was very one-sided. Guerriere had lost a mast, mainyard, and many guncrew. HMS Guerriere's Mizzenmast was in the water rendering the ship immobile. A failed boarding attempt was made by Guerriere. Demasted by Constitution's fire the Guerriere had to surrender.

I'm putting this up now for everyone's review and if there are no objections I'll replace it tonight. Tirronan (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your last few edits is comprised of close paraphrasing from Toll. This material was placed between 'refs', apparently intended as a footnote, so I have been placing this material in a footnote, fixing the close-paraphrasing and using Toll's 2006 published works (currently in our Bibliography) as a citation/source. Still working on this now. Also, if you don't own the book you can view (borrow) Toll's book here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem with it at all. Yes they are intended as footnotes. Yes I own both he book and the kindle edition of Toll's book. It is easier to use Kindle with the amount of citing I'm doing.Tirronan (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, USS Constitution commanded by Captain Isaac Hull sailed from the Chesapeake Bay on 12 July 1812. On 17 July, Commodore Broke's British squadron, including Guerriere, gave chase off New York, but Constitution evaded them after two days. Broke detached Guerriere from his squadron to seek out repairs as she had weak scantlings (Beams fastened with a thickened clamp rather than vertical and horizontal knees) and had become leaky and rotten. She had also been struck by lightning, severely damaging her masts. Captain Dacres was eager to engage the American frigate and to redeem British honour as Constitution was the sister ship of President and would serve equally well as an American ship to duel. Constitution had nearly 50 percent more men, more firepower, heavier tonnage and heavier scantlings (this determines how much damage enemy shot does to a ship) than Guerriere.

Constitution sighted Guerriere 400 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia on August 19, and the two ships engaged in a 35-minute battle. Constitution dismasted Guerriere and captured the crew. Guerriere was beyond repair and the Americans burned it before returning to Boston. Constitution earned the nickname "Old Ironsides" following this battle as many of the British cannonballs were seen to bounce off her hull due to her heavy scantlings.

Macedonian fitted the 50 percent statistic near perfectly.[33][198][199] I have no idea what this means. Having just reread Toll's account on the battle he doesn't mention this at all. None of the Citations have page numbers. I'm removing it.Tirronan (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)




 * I was just looking into this, per Lambert. Looking into James would be next.  Can we hold on removal for an hour?  If I can't source this material, and perhaps clarify, then we can remove it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have already removed it. Feel free to revert and change if you can find anything that makes sense. Much of what was removed had been stated in the sections lead in any case.Tirronan (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Preparing to rewrite the sentence on USS United States vs. HMS Macedonian, now complete.

I'm putting up this paragraph for discussion. My preference is to remove a good part of it. Ship rigged sloops vs. Gun Brigs is of keen interest to me but there is a reason I joined the US Navy. I suspect that the general public doesn't share my interests. So comments please?

The United States Navy's sloops had also won several victories over Royal Navy sloops of approximately equal armament. The American sloops Hornet, Wasp (1807), Peacock, Wasp (1813) and Frolic were all ship-rigged while the British Cruizer-class sloops that they encountered were brig-rigged, which gave the Americans a significant advantage. Ship rigged vessels are more maneuverable in battle because they have a wider variety of sails and thus being more resistant to damage. Ship-rigged vessels can back sail, literally backing up or heave to (stop).[199][200][201] More significantly, if some spars are shot away on a brig because it is more difficult to wear and the brig loses the ability to steer while a ship could adjust its more diverse canvas to compensate for the imbalance caused by damage in battle.[199] Furthermore, ship-rigged vessels with three masts simply have more masts to shoot away than brigs with two masts before the vessel is unmanageable.[33][200] In addition, while the American ships had experienced and well-drilled volunteer crews, the enormous size of the overstretched Royal Navy meant that many ships were shorthanded and the average quality of crews suffered and the constant sea duties of those serving in North America interfered with their training and exercises.[33][202][203][204] The only engagement between two brig-sloops was between the British Cruizer-class brig Pelican (1812) and the United States' Argus where Pelican emerged the victor as she had greater firepower and tonnage, despite having less crew.
 * Most history buffs would welcome this, and it would seem the serious student would not be put off. Perhaps some of the finer details might do well in a footnote. As an example, I put one such statement in a footnote. Pew! Four citations in a row and none have page numbers. Lambert and Toll are viewable on-line, while James and Roosevelt are in the public domain. Just for the record, I have never seen an article with so (very) many 'citation needed' and 'page needed' tags. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone was having a field day. They stripped page numbers from previous cites I had put in.Tirronan (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's troubling. Can you link us to a couple examples in edit history? The editor(s) in question should at least be asked why they removed page numbers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Commodore Philip Broke had lost Guerriere to Constitution from his very own squadron. He knew that Dacres of Guerriere intended to duel the American frigate to avenge the losses on Little Belt caused by USS President in 1811. Since Constitution had taken Guerriere, Broke intended to redeem Dacres' honour by taking the Constitution, which was undergoing repairs in Boston in early 1813. Broke found that Constitution was not ready for sea. Instead, he decided to challenge Chesapeake as Broke was short on water and provisions and could not wait for Constitution.[33] Captain James Lawrence of Chesapeake was misguided by propaganda intended to boost American morale (and successfully did) that claimed that the three frigate duels of 1812 were of equal force leading Lawrence to believe taking Broke's Shannon (1806) would be easy.[33][203] Lawrence even went to the extent of preemptively arranging for a banquet to be held for his victorious crew.[33][202][203][210] On the other hand, Broke had spent years training his crew and developing artillery innovations on his ship, making Shannon particularly well prepared for battle.[33][202][203][210] On 1 June 1813, Shannon took Chesapeake in a battle that lasted less than fifteen minutes in Boston Harbor. Lawrence was mortally wounded and famously cried out "Tell the men to fire faster! Don't give up the ship!"[199][202][200][204] The two frigates were of near-identical armament and length. Chesapeake's crew was larger, had greater tonnage and was of greater scantling strength (which led to the British claiming she was overbuilt,[211] but many of her crew had not served or trained together. Shannon had been at sea for a long time, and her hull had begun to rot, further exaggerating the disparity in scantling strength.[33] Nevertheless, this engagement proved to the only single-ship action where both ships were of essentially equal force during the War of 1812. British citizens reacted with celebration and relief that the run of American victories had ended.[212] Notably, this action was by ratio one of the bloodiest contests recorded during this age of sail due to the close-range engagement, the boarding (hand-to-hand combat) and Broke's philosophy of artillery being "Kill the men and the ship is yours", with more dead and wounded than HMS Victory suffered in four hours of combat at Trafalgar. Captain Lawrence was killed, and Captain Broke was so badly wounded that he never again held a sea command.[213] The Americans then did as the British had done in 1812 and banned single-ship duels after this engagement.[199][204]Tirronan (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend that we put some of the technical details in a footnote before we permanently remove any text, which I'm about to do now. Just as a general practice, anytime I remove text from a main article I make sure that same point is covered in the given dedicated article. In your last edit many major points were removed. e.g. The death of Captain Lawrence; Broke wounded -never again held a sea command; only single-ship action where both ships were of essentially equal force during the War of 1812.  I restored these and put a good measure of the finer details in footnotes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend that we put some of the technical details in a footnote before we permanently remove any text, which I'm about to do now. Just as a general practice, anytime I remove text from a main article I make sure that same point is covered in the given dedicated article. In your last edit many major points were removed. e.g. The death of Captain Lawrence; Broke wounded -never again held a sea command; only single-ship action where both ships were of essentially equal force during the War of 1812.  I restored these and put a good measure of the finer details in footnotes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, lets take this point by point.

Captain James 1. Lawrence of Chesapeake was misguided by propaganda intended to boost American morale (and successfully did) that claimed that the three frigate duels of 1812 were of equal force leading Lawrence to believe taking Broke's Shannon (1806) would be easy.

He wasn't taken in by anything his experience at sea against British ships told him that by and large, their gunnery was sheer crap. In most cases, he would have been correct. He had zero respect for the Royal Navy. In this case, he chose exactly the wrong ship. In all probability 90% of the frigates, he would have faced it might have been true. I won't say that in the article but, by his actions, he expected an all-out broadside battle he'd win. Lawerence never got Brooke's challenge. He was going to fight Shannon no matter what. So I read that statement as puffery.

The salient points to this battle were that Shannon had the better crew, her marines were better shots, and that Lawerence threw away a chance to rake whereby he might have won. The last point that should be made is that in all likelihood, it was the bloodiest ship battle in the war. Both crews were good, Shannon's were better.

Lastly, we get to undue weight. American victories get a few sentences yet British victories deserve fat paragraphs. I'm attempting to give equal weight. Is Shannon's victory more important than Constitution's? I rather doubt it. And the same can be said for any of the ship battles listed here. They made no difference to the course of the war.Tirronan (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, anything you can do to balance out the weight given between American and British events is most welcomed. In any event, I feel any major points should be covered in this article as well as in any related subject dedicated article. I've always edited main articles so they have a good amount of comprehensiveness, so as not to 'force' the reader to jump to another article just to get the basic picture of a given event or issue. Main and subject dedicated articles should have a good measure of contextual overlap, imo.   Needless to say, we still have a big mess of  citations to tend to. If this can't happen then we can remove the statements involved.  -- -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't have use for the rotten ship, all ships have to return to port for overhauls, even to this day. I don't have use for the "Brokes' kill the man and you take the ship. British standard policy was to aim for the hull. For that matter, so did the American's. So that is nothing new. Where you see Toll cited without a page number that is usually where I inserted a cite and the page number removed. So, I'm going to edit this so as to keep to the facts and leave the puffery out of it. While it might add color that could be said of every major ship combat of this war. The Essex is also very long as is the capture of the USS President. I'm applying the same rules to all engagements. Enough said.Tirronan (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, so looking at the Chesapeake/Shannon subsection I obviously rewrote the entire thing. To do it justice I had to go on more than I wanted to but it is still shorter and less jingoistic than it was. So to balance I expanded Constitution vs. Guerrier, and United States vs. Macedonian. The last section was particularly painful when I had mangled ref's and had to hunt them down one by one. Sheesh, do I feel like a newbie. They are all referenced. Someone stopped by last night and reference bombed us again. So you might want to check what you cited.Tirronan (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ian Toll citations
 — Your edits to the Single-ship actions section has created some issues I'm afraid. There are numerous examples of close-paraphrasing from Toll's Six Frigates work. Also, the refs contain lengthy footnotes, while the Kindle version of Toll citations offer no page numbers. Also, you have added the full source listing  i.e.Toll, Ian W.. Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy (Kindle Locations 7735-7740). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition, in the midst of the text more than 20 times(!). If you use SFN citations and refer to Toll in the Bibliography we can avoid the repetitive source listing in the middle of the text. In any case, the close-paraphrasing and lack of page numbers is the most important issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked with Milhist years ago about location numbers and I was told they were the equivalent of page numbers.Tirronan (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll look at rephrasing a bit the day after tomorrow. Life has caught up to me and I don't edit on Wiki 7 days a week.Tirronan (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I would strongly recommend that we refer to Toll's book in our Bibliography, which can be viewed/borrowed at archive.org, and use its page numbers. I've begun the process already -- I'm assuming this is okay by you.  I've also moved the notes (and close-paraphrasing) to footnotes. From there we can rephrase.  Enjoy your day(s) off. :-)   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Madison's list
 -- regarding your edit here: When asked for a list however, the Madison administration was only able to produce one based on hearsay, with 6,257 names, many of which were duplicated, and included those that had legitimately volunteered to serve. How does anyone establish a list with 6,257 names based on "hearsay"? Given the large numbers of impressed, if Madison had claimed 15,000 men were impressed, it would seem this "hearsay" list was far from complete. "Duplicate names"? How many men had names like John Smith, "Thomas Jones, Joe Campbell, etc -- names that could easily occur multiple times? At any rate, the practice of abducting American ships, cargoes and crews, was conducted largely under the pretext that the impressed men were deemed to be British subjects, and that many of them considered themselves to be Americans. Hickey, 1989, p.11, maintains that there were up to 100,000 seamen employed on American ships, and that only a quarter of them were technically, or legally if you prefer, British. Also, what does "legitimately volunteered to serve" mean exactly? They volunteered to serve with the British? Then why would the British try to impress them? The statement about a hearsay list seems to be full of holes and unanswered questions. To put it all in perspective, using Bickham, 2012, a statement was added that sort of renders this questionable claim as rather moot. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hearsay would mean that the names were provided by people who got the names second hand. First hand or direct evidence would be from ships' captains or eye witnesses. It's likely that at least some British born sailors on American ships volunteered for the Royal Navy. They of course would not have been impressed, but would have been on Madison's list. TFD (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How do we know that much of the hearsay didn't come from "eye witnesses"? Who is to say how much of the list was actually hearsay in the first place -- how was this arrived at? More partisan speculation? This hearsay issue really doesn't carry far when all is considered. Also, if the men in question had volunteered into the Royal Navy, what were they doing aboard American merchant vessels? In any case, some 130,000 men were put to work aboard British vessels by 1812, and that 75% of them were impressed. These numbers come from Bickham, 2012, p. 32, a source that was used to prop up the out of context statement about a hearsay list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Eye witnesses would be first hand or direct evidence, not hearsay. Working on a ship is a job, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is loyal to the flag the ship flies, especially if they have not taken out naturalization. A British sailor in Liverpool for example might sign onto a U.S. ship to New York as opposed to a British ship to India for any number of reasons. TFD (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement in the section says "legitimately volunteered to serve". If their service was legitimate, then wasn't it illegal to impress them into the British navy? In any case, we are talking about overall impressment numbers that dwarf the numbers on this list, the names of which could indeed come from numerous sources. Are we supposed to assume that the names on this so called hearsay list were just passed from one obscure mouth to another and from no other source? Latimer, 2009, pp.31-32 gives us a footnote number, 112, as a source for this statement, however, his book is only partially viewable on line, so we can't consider it as it is. Would be interesting to see how this list was actually arrived at, and by what account(s). At any rate the ongoing impressement of men, the hijacking of ships and cargo was occurring on a massive scale in the years that led up to the war, and everyone on both sides of the Atlantic knew about it. Madison really didn't need any list to relate this problem to London officials in the first place, so it seem this hearsay statement is just rhetorical, and appears to be its own hearsay statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * People who "legitimately volunteered" would not have been impressed. However, they might have been on Madison's list. So if Richard Roe of Liverpool left his ship to volunteer for the RN, it should not be counted as impressment. I don't know where the hearsay evidence came from just that it was hearsay. Also, I don't know how many names were duplicated. Governments, including the U.S., frequently manufacture false evidence to justify wars, from the sinking of the USS Maine to the WMDs in Iraq. TFD (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How does anyone establish a list with 6,257 names based on "hearsay"? Quite! It was much much easier to pluck a figure out of the air; say, umm, 15,000? It doesn't really matter whether you understand how or why it was done, just so long as you understand that that is what reliable sources say. Most sources say that the figures bandied about by the war hawks were massively exaggerated. Latimer, (1812, War with America, pp.31-32) gives a figure of 6,257, as does Davey (In Nelson's Wake, p.256), Rodgers (Command of the Ocean, p.566 ) and Bickham (The Weight of Vengeance, p31) say 6,500, Lambert (The Challenge, p.27) suggests less than 10% which would have been about 7,000. Hardly anyone mentions the 15,000 figure, except to say it was ficticious. It doesn't suprise me that this isn't in Toll's book, although in fairness, I don't think it's supposed to be a serious in-depth analysis. What does surprise me however, is that you are trying to write a balanced account with a single source.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Voluntary enlistment is explained in "Subjects vs. Citizens." When faced with impressment, a sailor could be offered a bounty for enlistment. If he accepted, his enlistment was considered voluntary both by GB and the U.S. There were also disputes over nationality of impressed sailors. Incidentally, the article also points out that it was not possible to distinguish between Americans and people from the south of England based on their accents. The RN would therefore require documents proving birth in the U.S. and would question the sailors, since these documents were frequently forged. but British consuls would help Americans get released when mistakes were made by the RN. TFD (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * " but British consuls would help Americans get released when mistakes were made by the RN." - TFD We've been through this, and the article covers this. The process of identifying Americans, who were already out to sea, and releasing them, often took years, and long after the damage had been done. i.e.The removal of crews from American merchant vessels, leaving them unfit for sea-duty, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ykraps & TFD – Madison had a list, and all anyone can do at this late date is wonder how the names were added. "Hearsay" comes off as sloppy partisan speculation and dismisses much. In light of the big picture, this list doesn't change anything. We know Monroe addressed London officials about the ongoing and massive impressment. Considering its scope it would seem Madison, via Monroe, didn't need any list to convince London of the seriousness of the issue, which of course they were well aware of. i.e.Lurking off the American shore, the routine removal of crews from American merchant vessels, making off with the cargoes and ships in many cases, weakening the American economy and all it effected, like the US military, all the while Britain was strengthening their navy. Anyone with their eyes half open would rightfully assume Britain was setting America up for a fall, and indeed Madison and others saw it that way and declared war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both authors provide sources for their claims. I don't have access to their footnotes, but you should look them up before dismissing the facts presented in reliable sources. "Hearsay" is not sloppy partisan speculation, but has a specific meaning: "information that you have heard but do not know to be true." TFD (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Monroe complained that 15,000 seaman had been abducted, London offered to look into it but needed a list of names (obviously!), the list only contained 6,257 names, some of which were duplicated! So we know there were less than 6,257 abductees. Hickey says around 6,000, presumably trying to make an adjustment for the duplicates. I have now given you six eminent historians who say between 6 and 7 thousand. What more do you want?!
 * If you want to learn about this war, you need to read books, lots of them, and in their entirety! You cannot read a few snippets from Google Books and fill in the blanks with your own speculations and ponderings! You are missing crucial information and the relevance of what is being said.--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I might just piggyback on this conversation and ask if you could provide the quote from Bickham p32 that supports the idea that 75% of men in the royal navy were pressed by 1812? That is a very large number and everything else I've read mostly points to closer to 15-20% pressed as a top end. Is Bickham including men "turned over" as pressed men - which would be wrong - although some might have been many would not have, but since they would account for about another approx 40% of sailors on a given ship it might make his number up? - Grible (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * TFD, you should also look up the sources for footnotes in reliable sources before advising me to do so. In any case "hearsay" at this point remains a speculation. Did someone go about the country side talking to dozens of different people, captains, officials and all got together and came up with a list? Yes, "hearsay" has a specific meaning, but its assertion appears to be the product of speculation. Since we have a source that says this we can let the statement ride, but if it is not qualified soon it will have to be challenged. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ykraps, please don't attempt to amuse yourself at my expense. I've read much about the war of 1812 and have been writing about it and its related subjects for years. I have not added my "own speculations and ponderings" or anything that can't be backed up by reliable sources, thank you.  If you have been paying attention to immediate affairs around here you would know this.  -- I've already addressed the "duplicate names" issue, as many names were common place and obviously would occur numerous times in any long list. How did anyone prove a given duplicate name was actually of the same person, btw? Once again, even without a list, the problem of ongoing British impressment was an issue that couldn't be put off, as London attempted to do by requesting a list. It was well aware of the ships and crews they had abducted near American shores and elsewhere, so this whole list issue was, and is now, an apparent attempt to sidetrack from that larger picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the duplicate names issue, you have speculated that they were all called John Smith, and assumed it was a list of names only, unaccompanied by any other information. Do you have a source that contradicts Latimer or Bickham? Or any of the other historians?
 * Nor am I amusing myself. I am becoming increasingly frustrated with having to explain everything to you, painstakingly sift through sources for you, then have it all dismissed out of hand with unreferenced musings. I mentioned Google snippets because on a number of occasions now, you have quoted a book that contains some of the points you have been contradicting; the latest one being page 11 of Hickey which states, "...by accident or design, American citizens were sometimes caught in the British dragnet. Between 1803 and 1812, some 6,000 suffered this fate".--Ykraps (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Grible, I am using the same source that was used to cite the "hearsay" statement, Bickham, 2012, which can be viewed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * *Gwillhickers, That definitely does not support 75%. The fact the Navy released 50,000 men then 60,000 men is not referring to pressed men, but to overall number, unless you are claiming that 110,000 of the 130,000 men in the navy were pressed? I think Bickham's formatting leaves a lot to be desired but it's clear to me that this quote does not support a figure of 75% impressment. -Grible (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC) (edited to add sig and removed Americans, not needed to make point)
 * Further more - Impressment comes in two forms, the Impress Service in Britain, which supplied large numbers, and was meant to target only "men of the sea" (a somewhat elastic definition at points) and individual navy ships either pressing from other ships at sea (again mainly British ships, notoriously so with Indiamen, - so your remark about "were they pressing from their own ships", the answer is Yes) or sending "press gangs" ashore to meet their own needs. Men could also be "turned over" that is a warship returning to port would normally pay off, but sometimes it would hand off large parts of it's crew to another out-bound ship, this was a way of sailors retaining their ratings (and so increased pay) so it could be popular, it could also amount to an "internal pressing" if the sailors would rather be released. If we are counting anyone who comes through the Impress as a "pressed man" then we are wrong - approx 2/3rds took bounties and were classed as "volunteers", some almost certainly under duress but not all. The Quota System is another thing entirely, accounting for around 10% of the manning (London Ports alone had to find something like 5000 men a year), and was largely made up of petty criminals and other people "encouraged" to go to sea. Then there's the Maritime Society - who basically took in poor boys and trained them up with a view to sending them to the navy - providing something like 20,000 men and boys during the period. There are loads of ways the British tried to man their ships and simply packing them with unwilling Americans is the least of it. - Grible (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's actually up to you to look up the sources since you are the one questioning the information. Reliable sourcing works on the assumption that reliable sources are reliable for facts. Occasionally, facts are wrong, but it would absurd to require every claim you question. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid objection to facts in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Madison's list, continued...

 * TFD, please watch these little twists. I did not say IDONTLIKEIT is a valid objection. I am simply asking for clarification and on what basis was this "hearsay" issue made. When it comes to fuzzy statements about controversial issues inquiries should be made.
 * Grible, We are only concerned about impressment as it was imposed on American shipping here, so there's no need for the lengthy outline of all its different variants. I have not added anything to the article that the sources don't say. No one seems to be questioning Bickham regarding his "hearsay" claim, but when he is referred to in regards to the number of impressed in the Royal Navy it seems so. If there are sources that say otherwise, or if clarification is needed on any point, it would be welcomed by me if the sources say so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bickham doesn't actually say that the 110,000 men released were impressed at all, let alone American. I don't think you can use him to support that claim. In fact it might be worth just cutting the whole line, I will look for some sources tomorrow. -Grible (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any statement in the article that includes the number 110,000, or anything about releasing that many men. Could you quote the statement you are referring to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You added a line which says "By 1812 there were 130,000 men working aboard Royal Navy ships and approximately 75 percent of them had been impressed" and supported it by a quote from Bickham "By the time the war of 1812 ended, the Royal Navy was demobilising rather than recruiting - releasing 50,000 men from service at the end of 1814 and a further 60,000 by the end of 1816 from a starting point of 130,000" I concluded you were taking those numbers 50,000+60,0000=110,000 from 130,000 to produce the claim of 75% Impressment. I am first disputing that this is true, I don't read the Bickham quote as claiming these men were impressed at all, merely released from the service - whatever their enlistment process had been. Secondly I'm raising the objection that of these 110,000 the vast majority are going to be British again regardless of recruitment process, not American or others. I tried to explain that, but you have informed me that the article is only to consider impressment of Americans, not the wider impress service or background to British naval manning outlined above. So I'm proposing we remove this line, and probably some other bits and pieces that have crept in recently. For instance "Once impressed, any seaman, regardless of citizenship, who accepted pay as a seaman, was no longer considered impressed but a "volunteer"" which is also incorrect, and I would love to see the quote supporting it, similar to the one you have used from Bickham I suspect it might not actually say that - if you took the bounty then you became a (dubious) 'volunteer', but you could refuse it and remain a pressed man, you would be paid, just not get the signing on bonus and some other privileges, these men weren't worked as slaves - however pressed men who later deserted were treated more leniently and mostly just returned to service (and yes, probably punished), where as volunteers could be hung. The result of that line being in the article is to cast doubt on the figures given for volunteer vs pressed men, so it's frankly a bit weaselly. Generally you seem to be deliberately or otherwise trying to imply that the Royal Navy was impressing huge, disproportionate numbers of actual Americans and skewing the article that way. This ties back to the 15000 vs 6000 claims you are talking about with the other users. I shall do some more reading and try to find quotes. Who knows I might end up proving myself wrong. -Grible (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * TLDR. But from a quick scan, you appear to be saying that not everyone in the Royal Navy was impressed. You are quite correct. A large proportion were volunteers. Despite the accounts of how brutal it was, it was no more brutal than life ashore, and all things considered, wasn't a bad job at that time: three square meals a day and the chance of some prize money.--Ykraps (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the sentence in the article stating: "When asked for a list however, the Madison administration was only able to produce one based on hearsay, with 6,257 names, many of which were duplicated, and included those that had legitimately volunteered to serve." I don't understand Bickham's use of "hearsay" in this context. I've looked at his sources and still do not see an answer as to why he used "hearsay." I have a question about the source of the first part of the sentence where it states "When asked for a list." Who asked for this list and what is the source supporting it?Dwalrus (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * What does the source that Bickham used say? TFD (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Latimer says, "...Madison produced a shoddy report on impressment that claimed a total of 6,257 cases of alleged Americans "impressed and held in bondage"; many names were duplicated, and some were recorded three or four times.
 * Bickham says, "With duplicated names and hearsay evidence, the Madison government struggled to produce a number above 6,500, and many of them were either deserters who had legitimately signed up for service in the Royal Navy..."
 * If the only issue hear is use of the word hearsay, then by all means drop it but I don't see how it reflects any better on Madison's government.--Ykraps (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The list of 6,257 sailors was provided to Congress by Madison on Jan. 6, 1812 in ''Message from the President of the United States Transmitting a Report From the Secretary of State on the Subject of Impressments, In Obedience to a Resolution From the House of Representatives." It lists all sailors who had applied to the London office for the relief of impressed sailors between 1803 and September 1811. The list is of course unreliable because we don't know how many of the applicants were actual U.S. citizens or how many had actually volunteered for service. And of course, may sailors applied more than once. TFD (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Joshua Wolf's Ph.D dissertation is an important study of the impressment of US sailors. It's actually the only in-depth study since James Zimmerman's book. As Wolf points out the complaints about duplicates are probably overstated as the American agents in London stated these were common names and not just the same person being repeated. He also points out the list does not include the many impressments in the West Indies and elsewhere.
 * On the negative side, we don't know how many were actual US citizens. As for the claim that some were volunteers like the issue of duplicates I suspect this is exaggerated. Why? The pay in the British Navy was very low compared to the pay on commercial ships in the US and Britain. If a sailor signed on to a commercial ship it was usually for one voyage. They could just get off at the next port. Volunteering for the British Navy was drastically different. The only way a sailor could leave was: (1) if the war ended, (2) he was so injured he could no longer function, (3) he escaped, or (4) he was killed. I doubt many US sailors who were impressed voluntarily then joined. What is more likely is they were tricked or coerced into taking the "bounty" and then listed as having volunteered. A few may have voluntarily joined but it's unlikely to have been very many. Dwalrus (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The thesis says that between 1797 and Sept. 1810, 10,501 seamen applied to London agents for release from the RN on the basis of U.S. nationality. 579 (5%) were found to be British subjects, while 606 were "volunteers." The RN said that 121 others were held for other legal reasons. 2,593 were ordered released. The other cases were never dealt with. (pp. 37-38) The reason so many volunteered is that the RN gave them a choice between volunteering and impressment. If they volunteered, they received a bounty and higher pay. If they refused to volunteer they were impressed, with little chance of being released. The reason for duplicate names is probably that individuals applied more than once, and may have been impressed more than once.
 * I could not find Madison's list, but I found one submitted in 1808. Since in addition to names, it provides dates and places of impressment and names of ships they were taken from, it would be possible to identify most of the duplications. Note that some of the seaman are listed as British or other non-American and in many cases nationality was not known or proved. Some of the sailors listed could have already been released or deserted.
 * I agree that the term hearsay should not be used. But it is clear that not all of the names were illegally impressed and still being held.
 * TFD (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's been a few years since I read Wolf's dissertation, but if I remember correctly he stated some US sailors were coerced to take the bounty and included some examples. BTW, if you want Bickham's exact end-note I will get it later. Dwalrus (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dwalrus. Even without a source the issue of duplicate names is easily explained in that there are an assortment of names that were indeed commonplace and naturally would occur in any lengthy list many times.  Apparently some historians have attempted to make that into some sort of issue, referring to the list as the product of mere "hearsay", which is sort of moot in the first place because, list or no list, the issue of ongoing and massive impressment was a major concern for Americans and was fundamental in leading up to a declaration of war. If London actually needed a list to figure that one then it would more than suggest that they were just attempting to avert or downplay the issue. Britain often tried to justify the practice by referring to it, as Denver Brunsman notes, an "evil necessity". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Grible, thanks for your words of moderation. Yes, if we can find other sources that can bring further clarification to the 'numbers' issue that would be nice. In any event, it's quite clear that Britain was impressing men for its navy in excess of 100,000 by 1812, and that many thousands of them were Americans. Even if they began downsizing after that year it has little bearing on the impressement that led to the war.
 * TFD, Yes, we should drop the term "hearsay" as the claim in of itself seems to be hearsay. In any case, the first paragraph in the Abstract of Wolf's dissertation pretty much wraps up the issue of impressement. e.g. "Impressment has often been viewed as an issue of minor importance, confined largely to New England. In actuality, impressment was a national concern that impinged on a myriad of issues during the early American republic." — J. Wolf Very true, Wolf certainly echoes what many other sources have always maintained. The practice of impressing crews from American merchant vessels not only threatened the American economy, it impacted on the funding potential for the military -- all the while Britain was strengthening is navy and reaping the benefits of the ships and cargoes they made off with.  That they made efforts to release Americans later and compensate for illegal gains only occurred, such that it did, quite some time after the damage had been done. Increasing the numbers of crewman aboard British naval and merchant ships enabled them to ply their trade in many parts of the world. "Naval supremacy allowed the British to gain control of much of North America, and the [West Indies, India, south Africa, Australia, South America, southeast Asia]. Equally important, the Royal Navy’s dominance secured British trade routes, which helped make England’s economy the strongest in Europe. The backbone of the Royal Navy was its skilled seamen, at least 40 percent of whom were forced into the service against their will. Brunsman argued that the surprising fact about the press-gang system is that it worked so well." — J. Wolf, pp. 19-20 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence to explain the duplications by sailors having the same names. If there were one would expect that their information would be different: date of impressment and name of ship. It's very common for original lists to have duplications. Also, I don't see why you would accuse some historians of falsifying history, that's a pretty serious accusation for someone in their position and something that peer review should find. On the other hand, a politician providing a bloated list of impressed sailors basically comes with the territory. Not really sure how the impressment of several hundred U.S. sailors every year would have a major impact on their economy. TFD (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see how a list of names, with dates of impressement, ship's name, etc is all the product of hearsay. One editor amongst us claimed it was "entirely hearsay evidence". My condescending remark about some historians was in reference to this sort of "hearsay" claim and the idea that too much weight seems to be given this list. It is entirely possible, even probable, that there was more than one John Smith, or Jones or Campbell, etc aboard the same ship. Once again, list or no list, London had to be well aware of the magnitude of the problem they had created with the practice of impressment on such a prolonged and massive scale. That they 'required' a list from the Americans only tells us they were not very receptive of the issue when it was brought to their attention. In any case, we indeed should drop the "hearsay" claim if it can not be substantiated with a RS that tells us how this idea was actually arrived at. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The list evidently was far from complete. Hickey, 2009, p. 21 claims there were some 10,000 Americans who were impressed by 1812. In Wolf's dissertation, pp. 45-46, he points out that the number of impressed Americans has been hotly debated for more than two centuries with some estimates as high as 36,000. Wolf, however, maintains that a realistic and conservative estimate would place the number of impressed Americans at around 10,000. Of course the number of all who were impressed, Americans, Britons, etc, taken from American merchant vessels was much higher, and there's no denying the adverse effect it had on the American economy and all it effected. We seem to be getting away from all this with all the attention that is being given to this list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"Not stated"

 * If we must examine the list to the extent that it has been here, we must note that the list at it appears here and here and here, etc in (very) many cases indicates "not stated" under the headings for Dates of Impressment and Places of Impressments and Names of vessels. What we need is a source that can explain in no uncertain terms how it was determined that "many" of the names were duplicated. Did not Madison and his staff examine the list? Are we to assume that they believed many of the names were duplicated and went ahead and submitted this "shoddy report" to London - regardless? Along with the rather transparent claim of "hearsay", it seems too many things are simply being smoothed over. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not know why Bickham would use the term hearsay, since it is a legal term. But the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "information that you have heard but do not know to be true, " If you look at Madison's earlier report (I provided a link), you will see that in many cases the sailors did not provide proof of citizenship. There are also a number of sailors listed who were other nationalities. For example on the first page, four British, a Prussian and a Lascar are included. The second page names of 33 men who claimed to be Americans but provided no evidence, as well as a British subject and a Swede. All these men were enlisted between 1803 and September 1811, so should have been on the 1812 list, unless they had since been discharged or deserted. Despite the claim that no sailors taken in the Caribbean were listed, there is one sailor taken in Bermuda, one in St Kitt's and two in Jamaica listed on the first two pages. Five sailors were impressed in the UK, hence should not have been on the list. In most cases there is no information about where and when the sailors were impressed. So it would be wrong to claim that all these men were impressed American sailors who waived the right to volunteer.
 * If you want to determine how many names were duplicated as opposed to two people having the same name, you can run through the names, see which ones are the same and see if they were taken in the same place and time and the same ship.
 * TFD (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, albeit in a slightly different way, there is no evidence that the duplicate names were a result of multiple seamen with the same name. You don’t even know that those duplicate names were widespread; like John Smith. That is merely your speculation. The fact of the matter is, the list had duplicated names on it, and a number of eminent historians have decided that's worth pointing out. It's not Wikipedia's job to get to the truth, whatever that may be, Wikipedia can only repeat what is in reliable sources. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that Wolf's 15,000 figure is from the period 1793-1812, whereas Monroe’s was from 1803-1812; a period less than half as long.--Ykraps (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement about a lack of impressments listed from the West Indies refers to the relatively few reports filed by the US agents stationed there and not that there were none at all listed.


 * I just want to make clear that it was not just Americans who were impressed by the British Navy. Scott Thomas Jackson for his 1976 Ph.D dissertation (University of Michigan) titled Impressment and Anglo-American Discord, 1787-1818 did extensive research in British archives. He wrote on pages 54 and 55:


 * "Officers could claim, as one Admiral did, that fraudulent oaths and certificates of citizenship made it "very difficult to Discriminate," an excuse which was plausible and one which could be believed if officers had impressed only those who spoke the English language. But British officers also impressed hundreds of Europeans from the decks of European and American ships. These were men about whose nationality there could have been no doubt, and over whom Britain could claim no jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Admiralty files are filled with hundreds of requests from European consuls for the release of their own impressed countrymen. Swedes, Norwegians, Prussians, Danes, Spaniards, Portuguese, Genoans, Sicilians and especially Americans—none were spared when a captain needed men." Dwalrus (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is generally accepted that some naval recruiters impressed men who were clearly ineligible. However, your source mentions hundreds of these cases, whereas the U.S. listed thousands of cases. Furthermore, many of them were impressed from U.S. ships and if they were RN veterans, had lived in GB or married a British woman, they were eligible for impressment. TFD (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some were taken from US ships but that is irrelevant. Whether they were taken from US ships, their own national ships, or British commercial ships they were still clearly foreign nationals. Claiming they were deserters, married a British woman, or had lived in Britain is as open to question as saying some of Americans listed as impressed were actually British or deserters. The complaints filed by the European governments may each have involved more than one sailor and comparing hundreds versus thousands proves nothing. British captains were desperate for sailors and all rationalizations/excuses aside that was the problem. Dwalrus (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the point was that since the British impressed Europeans, that the claim they could not distinguish Americans from British was disingenuous. But three facts nullify that argument: (1) there were far fewer Europeans impressed (like about one tenth as many despite the fact Europe had forty times the population), (2) some of the Europeans were either eligible for impressment or had volunteered and (3) there were cases where RN captains broke the law in order to meet their quotas. The admiralty in fact investigated about 40% of the cases between 1797 and 1810 and found that two thirds were valid and the men were released. Unlike today, British and American accents had not diverged, so it was not possible to distinguish based on accent. TFD (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD — Assumed British subjects could not be distinguished from Americans simply because the Americans were mostly of British descent. In any case, the mindset, and the resultant justification, behind British impressement was troubling and often arrogant. While some Americans were eventually released the British admiralty overall were not inclined to cooperate. Often times applications for release were ignored, while they could deny a seaman’s release by claiming he could not be found, which was effected either by incorrectly entering a man’s name on the ship’s log books or by quickly transferring an American from one ship to another. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  — As pointed out, the list Madison submitted very often indicated "not stated" under the various headings, so that alone would make the effort for ascertaining the validity of duplicate names very difficult. That Madison's list had a lesser date range doesn't change anything in terms of the pressing issue that led to war. Also, what evidence do we have that indeed confirms that any duplicated name was of the same person? I've no doubt that some of the names may have been duplicated - but to what extent? Again, this whole "hearsay" and "duplicate names" issue seems like it was intended to discredit Madison and presented as a way to blow off the greater problem and issue of massive and prolonged impressment.  Whether crews taken from American vessels were American or British, the vessels were still left under-manned and thus unfit for sea duty, and too often their cargoes and the ships themselves were also seized. Again, that London sat there and demanded a list clearly tells us that they were far from acknowledging the seriousness and extend to the problem they had created, which is why war was eventually declared. Meanwhile, the statement about duplicate names should not be presented as a statement of absolute fact.  We should preface it with an objective clause.   i.e.Given the similar names, it was assumed they were of the same man. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet you don't find that suspicious? That half the information is missing, is indeed "shoddy". Why on earth would you not at least remember where your friend was taken? You must've been there too! Unless it's all "hearsay" of course.--Ykraps (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, the word hearsay means "information that you have heard but do not know to be true." So all the entries that say "All these men claim to be American citizens, but they have not exhibited proof to the Department of State" can be considered hearsay. Why? Because the men told the State Dept. they were citizens and State does not know if that is true. TFD (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Using that yard stick, then most everything can be considered hearsay. e.g.Diaries, log books, letters, dispatches. And we don't know whether, or how many, of the men in question indeed had papers, corroborating witnesses, etc. That said, the statement should read that the list is considered hearsay.  It would be misleading to refer to the entire list as the product of mere hearsay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Providing a birth certificate is a higher level of evidence than just saying you are a U.S. citizen. ICE for example won't release a suspected illegal immigrant just because they say they are a U.S. citizen, they require documented proof. TFD (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No! Hearsay means you heard it, as opposed to witnessing it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Madison's list, "hearsay", continued...

 * So in other words, in order for the list to not be hearsay, each and every man on the list would have had to step up and enter his own name, etc. Also, at the time of the compilation of the list, how many of the impressed men were still at sea, how many even knew about such an effort? Even if they got word of the effort, how many were near enough to add their names? The only way to make such a list would be gather names from log books, letters, dispatches and other documents. – The only way. – London must have known this when they were dragging their feet and asked for a list, knowing they could easily criticize it before they even received it. Clever.  Using your yardstick, all of our reliable sources are "hearsay", as they are not written by the actual people involved in the various events and issues. If we were to refer to e.g.Bickham's or Wolf's works as "hearsay" because they did not witness the events, and "shoddy", because they don't include all of the facts, it would naturally be considered a highly critical, and unfair, estimation of their works. Ditto with Madison.  The terms "hearsay" and "shoddy" raise serious neutrality issues as they are used in a context that intentionally try to diminish the effort to gather names. Best to say the list was impossible to complete, and mention why, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Wolf, 2015, covers the same idea involving the almost impossible effort of gathering up a complete and accurate list of impressed names, on p.47: "James Monroe was likely correct when he asserted, “from the want of means to make their cases known, and other difficulties inseparable from their situation, there is reason to believe that no precise or accurate view, is now or ever can be exhibited of the names or number of our seamen who are impressed into and detained in the British service.”[43] . . ." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * TLDR. Again, no! If you said you saw your friend carted off by a press gang, you would have witnessed it! If you say, a friend told you that his friend was carted off by the press gang, that's hearsay! As you have done much so speculating, I am going to speculate that if you witnessed it, you would, at the very least, remember where you were! The words shoddy and hearsay, are not my words, they are the words of Bickham and Latimer but the more I see of this list, the more I tend to agree with them.
 * I feel obliged to point out that at this juncture, that while some disertations are acceptable as reliable sources, they are by no means preferred. Has anyone of any note commented on Wolf's work?--Ykraps (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wolf's dissertation was finished in 2015 and it would take a few years for it to be referenced by others. There have not been many if any books on the war of 1812 published since then. One of the members of his examining committee was Alan Taylor who is a highly respected historian having won two prestigious Pulitzer Prizes. Also, it may surprise some but just because an "eminent historian" makes statement on a topic it does not automatically mean he did significant research on it. Dwalrus (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ykraps has a point, that dissertations are not usually referred to by credentialed historians who mostly refer to primary sources and other works by noted historians. However, Wolf's dissertation is a great source for our purposes, imo, esp since it cites numerous other noted historians, including Zimmerman, Hutchinson, Hickey, Brunsman Taylor and an array of primary sources including correspondence and records from Madison, John Rodgers, Broke, etc, and that it touches on an area that is often treated in a cursory fashion by many (most?) other sources. Dwalrus also makes a good point, in that Wolf's work is relatively new, and since 2015 there have been no noted works published on the War of 1812. In any case, sources should be judged on a per source basis and any conclusions arrived at should be based primarily on content and the primary and secondary sources involved. Hopefully I'm preaching to the choir here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)