Talk:War of 1812/Archive 27

Other sources to consider


Wolf's dissertation makes numerous references to Zimmerman's work. On p. 20 Wolf says of Zimmerman... "He was the first historian to study U.S. State Department records on impressment, but Zimmerman concentrated almost entirely on the reports made by the agents for impressed sailors. His treatment of the impressment of American seamen is still considered to be the best, evinced by the fact that so many historians reference Zimmerman’s research." — J. Wolf -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can find a copy, it would likely explain the duplicated names and the accuracy of the list. It could be that no one has tried to assess the accuracy of the list since, and merely relied on Zimmerman's conclusions. TFD (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Merely"? I found and linked to a copy, just above. (?!) Wolf  maintains that many historians have taken his account into their fold. Not having read it, I would reserve any preconceived opinions you may have and give it an objective perusal before dismissing the lot of them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only see a snippet view of Zimmerman's book. Can you see a preview or full text? TFD (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have linked to Zimmerman's work directly above. The entire work is available for download. Just wanted to point out that Zimmerman was and  is widely respected and did much groundbreaking work. Again, Wolf refers to him in his dissertation more than forty times.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I cannot access the book through your link. TFD (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Well that's funny -- can't figure. Try one of these links:


 * https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=James+Fulton+Zimmerman%2C+Impressment+of+american+seamen%2C+google+book


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=K44sAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * They still don't work. I'll try using a different browser. TFD (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this but a new source was added with Christopher Lloyd's book The British Seaman. The edit stated "Between 1792 and 1812, 8607 men were released from service after such appeals." I have the book and Lloyd states that he took the statistics from James Zimmerman's book on impressment. The exact statement in Lloyd's book on pages 196 and 197 is:

"The exact numbers in either case will never be known. Between 1792 and 1802 we know that 2,410 genuine Americans were discharged from the Royal Navy. Between March and November 1803 there were 605 such applications, but only 140 were granted, the others being refused on the grounds that the applicant either failed to produce the necessary documents or, since he had accepted the bounty, must be regarded as a British subject. Between 1803 and 1812 there were 6,057 similar cases of discharge, but in all probability twice that number were never discharged for one reason or another."

It appears that Christopher Lloyd mistook the number of impressments for the number of those actually released. Am I missing something here. Dwalrus (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I added that - I have the book too - it being the first solid numbers I could find about the success/fail of appeals. What makes you think Lloyd is mistaking total impressments for releases? He seems pretty clear he's talking about men impressed and later released, talking about refusals to release and the comment at the end that probably more were not? If he's just cribbing the numbers from Zimmerman (again..., seriously, this dude appears to be the only source anyone has ever used about impressment of Americans ever, it's 100 years old and used only US source material, time for some new original research if ever there was one author types!!) then why talk about releases not just impressments? I'm not saying he's not got tangled up, but do you have some sources that disagree or better yet something else about rates of appeal? -Grible (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Lloyd states that he used James Zimmerman's book. There is no evidence he did original research on his own. Zimmerman gives both of the largest figures Lloyd quotes of 2,410 for 1792 to 1802 and 6,057 for 1803 to 1812. However, Zimmerman does not claim these were release numbers, instead he calls them impressments. Zimmerman does say that many of the 2,410 were released, but not all of them. He does not make the same claim for the 1803 to 1812 period. If Lloyd's claims on releases are accurate then why didn't Andrew Lambert and Jon Latimer use them?


 * You are right about Zimmerman's book being old and that is why Wolf's work is so important. Everyone, including Lambert and Latimer used Zimmerman. Dwalrus (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty solid argument. I'll cut the line and ref back out, but it then leaves us with no numbers of releases just a slightly wishy statement that some men were, which is frustrating :-) -Grible (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Impressement an "accepted practice"?
The following statement found in the Impressment, trade, and naval actions section is highly questionable:
 * Though most saw it as necessary, the practice of impressment was detested by most Britons. It was illegal under British law to impress foreign sailors; but it was the accepted practice of the era for nations to retrieve seamen of their own nationality from foreign navies during times of war.

First, there is no Voelker listed in the bibliography. A google search for Voelker only yields an Amazon listing, with not even a snippet view available. Since a large number of Britons "detested" the practice, no doubt because many of their family members were taken away and often not seen again for years, and esp since the Americans were the last ones to see this practice as anything but "acceptable", we need to rewrite this statement more realistically, and objectively, using sources that give us a more encompassing view. The actions of press gangs were largely responsible for the way imprssement was viewed.
 * Nicholas Rogers, 2008, The Press Gang: Naval Impressment and its opponents in Georgian Britain points out that men slated for impressment would often intentionally go into debt so as to be detained by local courts, on shore, sparring them from the fate that awaited them on a British warship.
 * J.R. Hutchinson, 1914, The press-gang afloat and ashore has anything but condescending words for the practice of impressment as practiced by press gangs, who often meted out severe beatings to anyone who resisted their efforts  and who were often chased down and beaten for their trouble.
 * Zimmerman, 1925, Impressment of American Seamen maintains that -- "The practice was by no means cheerfully submitted to in England, and at times even met with strong objection from leading naval officials."
 * Wolf, 2015,  The Misfortnne to get Pressed: ... "The simmering tensions between the United States and Great Britain boiled over twice in armed clashes on the high seas, which caused a further deterioration in Anglo-American relations. By 1811, the strain between the two nations had escalated to the point that President Madison prepared the United States for hostilities with Great Britain."

Our account attempts to pass of the practice of impressment, which led to war, lets not forget, as business as usual in times of war, and again America was not at war when its crews and ships were subjected to this rather brutal practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right, the U.S. was neutral which is why it was accepted practice for the RN to search their merchant ships. Do you have any sources that Russia, Prussia, France etc. didn't also do this or that it was a violation of international law? You seem to be confusing it with opposition to impressment of one's own nationals. But even the U.S. has had conscription. TFD (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Voelcker, Tim, ed. (2013). Broke of the Shannon and the war of 1812. Barnsley: Seaforth Publishing. It's in the list of sources. I will correct the misspelling in the footnote. TFD (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't say impressment was an accepted practice! Stop creating false narratives! The sentence says that the retrieval of a nation's own seamen from foreign navies was accepted practice! What is it you find so unbelievable about that? I've added another reference.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that TFD is right in that the right of a nation to retrieve citizens in time of war was acknowledged. What is overlooked by the statement was the scale of impressments. And, a very liberal interpretation of who was a British citizen. Had the Swedish Navy stopped an American merchant and grabbed a couple of errant sailors it would have caused a shrug at best. There were cases where so many sailors taken that the ship in question had a hard time making port. Make no mistake, there were British Captains out there that didn't care who they grabbed so long as they spoke English and were sailors. There can be no argument that the practice was detested in Britain and by sailors. Reports are rife with accounts of British sailors swimming to shore to get away, and even stealing boats to run off.Tirronan (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The practice of impressment may have been acknowledged and even accepted if it was conducted in an incidental capacity. Yes, not many would object to a country seizing a deserter here or there, as other countries did, but that was far from the case with Britain in the years leading up to the war, where American vessels were routinely stripped of their crews, and cargoes, under the pretext of desertion or British subjugation. The way that press gangs operated for the primary purpose of expanding the British navy also put the matter into an entirely different ball-park, so much so that, once again, it led to war. i.e.Hardly accepted by the Americans, and as we're seeing, by many others. That our article simply refers to the affair as an "accepted practice of the era" smooths over many issues and is entirely misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this sort of thing and I think you need to consider that its pretty POV in it's own right. Nobody liked being pressed. Even the British sailors (of whom the vast vast majority of the navy's 140,000 men were. - about 15% non-British by 1812, - Brunsman in the Journal of the Early Republic - Winter 2010) it was about 70% volunteers in 1800, slowly declining to 50/50 by the end of the war in 1815. (- Dancy, PhD submission to Oxford 2010, drawn from Muster books of ships - since we can't cite half of Kew and it would be primary research if I did, and isn't particularly important in the article!) The RN was not trying to man it's fleet purely on seized Americans. The press was wildly blown up in US politics and war propaganda - (Brunsman again "Subjects vs. Citizens: Impressment and Identity in the Anglo-American Atlantic"). The ships were seized, by Britain and France, as they were trading in contravention to the blockades both countries set up, laws the owners of these ships were were aware of and chose to breach - there's even a section on it in the paragraph above - further note the New England merchants - the most affected group - was least in favour of war as they were still making a killing, even with the loss of ships to the blockade. The article currently only - repeat only - refers to the practice of "retrieving sailors of your own nationality" as "accepted", it does not gloss over the British pulling in all probability somewhere around 10,000 actual Americans out of shipping, or the taking of ships involved in trade with France. Both viewed by the Americans as illegal/unfair/dishonorable/cause for war, as the article states. Also, did it lead to war? I thought that was the American desire to invade Canada and crush the Natives in the west? (See POV in action)-Grible (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources overall indicate that impressment, as practiced by the British, was prolonged and conducted on a massive scale, that numerous appeals to Britain, over three decades, had failed, that the press gangs involved were often brutal and that the entire affair was the primary reason Madison declared war. Impressing deserters in of it self may have been "accepted", but again, this was used as a pretext to expand the British navy and abduct crews, cargoes and often American merchant ships. The existing statement only serves to gloss this over as it offers no other qualifying context. The following statement tends to do this but should be preceded with the clause however. Canada also factored in, as well as British attempts to incite Indians to fight against the Americans. This is not a mere "pov". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If you read the rest of the paragraph it goes on to expand upon the idea, it explains why the British used this "accepted" practice to take men off of American ships, it explains why they thought it was reasonable, and explains why the Americans very much did not. It was not just impressing "deserters" but anyone of British nationality that was the accepted practice. Hence the line "accepted practice of the era for nations to retrieve seamen of their own nationality from foreign navies during times of war". IMHO it probably should say "ships" not "navies" but I'm assuming that's the wording from the source. What riled the Americans up was that men they did not consider British were being impressed, and they felt the RN was throwing it's weight around, which it was. So they complained - Madison's list, Seaman's Agents etc. This is all covered. The entire following paragraph is basically nothing but context and expansion for this statement. I don't really see your issue (not rhetorical - I really don't grasp it) - do you want to add the word "However" before the statement on the 10,000 men taken in the next sentence? I'm not sure it adds much, just serving to push the reader towards the American view. You could also put the word "alleged" before American in the same sentence, but it just pushes the reader the other way. I get the feeling you want to out and out state that the British were wrong, and that the American case was correct, but it's not our purpose to do that, just provide the information as impartially as possible.

Separately again you use "abduct" which is a pretty POV word, even the US government went through the process of trying to obtain release for these men, not claiming they had been kidnapped. You may consider it abduction, but they don't seem to have. Abducting American ships or Cargos - or "taking them as lawful prizes pertaining to the Orders in Council and the rules of Blockade" as the British would describe it - is in fact covered in the paragraph above under trade, the slow tightening of the blockade on each other by both Britain and France left the US in a horrible position.

Further separately - the article itself goes into some detail about the disputed causes for war in the section below the paragraph we are obsessing over.

Further further separately - I think I'd really like to argue about this with you in a pub, it would be fun! -Grible (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not using the term abduct in our article but the term is nothing that distorts the idea of crews being forced and carried off to serve in Britain's navy. Yes, it does express the American view, or if I may, the facts that are otherwise dismissed or downplayed. In any case, using the term however only serves to exemplify that what occurred went far beyond the "accepted practice" of merely impressing British deserters and subjects and would lead them into the qualifying text following. If there are no strong, and reasonable, objections I'll add the term in a day or two. A pub? Yes, but these days it's usually sports that is talked about or debated. I suspect if we broke into a conversation about impressement during the War of 1812 it would be met with a lot of yawns, or eye rolling. :-) Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't rise to the level of how the U.S. treated prisoners taken to Guantanamo Bay, yet the Wikipedia articles refer to them as "detainees," not "abductees." Articles are supposed to use neutral language. TFD (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing the dealings with modern day terrorists, often hyped and distorted by partisan media, terrorists who would nuke most of the western world if given the chance, to the harsh treatment meted out by British press gangs is like comparing oranges to grand pianos. Our article, as mentioned above, doesn't use the word abducted and there is no effort here to do so, so there's no need to recite anything about neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When dealing with a dangerous madman intent on world domination, whether Napoleon, Hitler or Bin Laden, it is morally justified that thousands of innocent people suffer in order to save the world from an existential threat. You make the case for the Admiralty very well. TFD (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

And, we are right back to bring 21st Century views to a 19th-century article.Tirronan (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC) {ec}}
 * TFD — 'The British admiralty and their superiors justified wide scale impressment, but again, I wouldn't compare the lot of them to Hitler, etc. Even though they did colonize and exploit a great part of the world I think we can agree they were not fanatics blinded by their own ideologies. They did capitulate in many instances. Having said that, and since this is not a forum, we can agree that using words like "abducted" in the article, though not outlandish, is pushing the neutrality envelope, bearing in mind that a POV can sometimes be more accurate than trying to be perfectly neutral in every instance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tirronan — Presentism has always been a problem here at WP, esp as concerns the young and/or naive whose views on morality and the like are largely shaped by today's media. Disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have that bass ackwards. Napoleon represented an existential threat to civilization and the U.S. benefited from his defeat. They should be grateful for the low cost they paid. TFD (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Napoleon as "an existential threat to civilization" is sort of pushing the envelope. We can agree that he was power and glory hungry however. As for the British and their practice of impressment, they placed their own national, military and economic interests over those of others.  So what else is new? Let's get back to article improvement. There's been lots of talk and consulting of sources, yet article improvement has only inched forward. We still have dozens of citation issues, for openers. We should put some of that reading to actual use. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue sees to be that although Madison et al. used impressment as an excuse for war, he exaggerated the problem and the people affected (the Northeast) did not think it justified war. But as the old saying goes, the first casualty of war is the truth. We have to accurately reflect the facts as determined by reliable sources, rather than repeat the myths we were taught in childhood. The same thing applies for people who think that the war was launched with the specific objective of annexing Canada. TFD (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Impressement as an "excuse"? "exaggerated"?  Many thousands of crews were removed from  American merchant vessels while the British were strengthening their navy, all the while they were making off with cargoes and ships, and after numerous appeals to cease, more than justifies a declaration of war. The British could have averted war if they just knocked it off and offered better pay for their crews and better conditions for their navy rather than resorting to such large scale and prolonged impressement, brutal press gangs, etc. We are not saying anything multiple sources haven't said. It would help if you spoke in terms of specifics rather than making allusions to "myths" and what we may have been taught in childhood. I think we've heard enough of this sort of talk. Could you please point to specific statements in the article that you have any issues with and provide us with the source(s) that might make your case? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You started the thread. Yes, impressment was an accepted practice and the practice of drafting soldiers and sailors during war time continued until long after WW2. TFD (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was the accepted right of nations at war, to stop neutral shipping and confiscate contraband. There were two types of contraband, absolute and conditional (I'm sure I've already explained this) and it was the definition of the latter that was the point of argument. Only contraband could be taken and for much of the time, the ship owner received payment for it. A ship could only be taken if it tried to run, failed to produce papers or refused to submit to a search. RN captains were quite careful about what was taken because mistakes were paid for out of their own pockets (as previously explained).[] This is all in complete contrast to the French attitude which was to systematically burn American grain ships and lock up the crews as prisoners of war. Monroe’s claim that 15,000 Americans were impressed between 1803 and 1812, is indeed exaggerated. Most historians give figures for this period, of around 6000-7000. (I've already given you sources, here []) Britain did not want war with America and made a number of concessions in order to avoid it, including preferential trading rights, treating American ships with extra caution and prompt redress in the case of any errors. The unwillingness of the US to accept any compromise has led some historians to suggest the war as an excuse for a land grab. (particularly as Jefferson, Grundy, Johnson, Monroe and others, made no secret of their desire to annexe British possessions in North America).--Ykraps (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * To repeat, the 'idea' of impressment was accepted -- not the way it was practiced against the Americans. That they declared war largely over that issue sort of confirms that idea. WWII soldiers who were drafted were not carted away to fight in a war they didn't care about much, nor did they have their 'cargo' taken away from them, nor were they beaten if they resisted. Almost everyone, including most draftees, were eager to go after Hitler and the Japanese. Are there any specific statements in the article you have issues with? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's convoluted logic. So the U.S. invasion of Iraq is proof Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. declaration of war on Spain is proof they blew up the USS Maine, the War in Vietnam is proof of the Tonkin Incident. All it actually shows is an overreaction based on delusion. TFD (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a forum and all that, but we know impressment was treated as a pro-war talking point in the US, that's why you have news papers in the inland counties who've never seen a sailor printing editorials about "freeing their enslaved brothers from the tyrant". It's not that it wasn't happening, don't get me wrong it was! However in terms of myth-making and setting agendas the warhawks (largely from the more southernly states) were keen to use it to the hilt. I mean (soft voice) there might have been another reason that they weren't that keen on the RN stopping and searching ships, that might not apply to the more northerly states who depended on free trade. Also on the subject of Presentism - a big part of the commonly held understanding of the Press Gang and it's brutality tends to come from the 1830's and 40's when naval, democratic and social reform was the top set of issues in Britain. Abolish the Press, free the Slaves, votes for all men.... -Grible (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"accepted practice", continued...

 * TFD, the only convolutions being put forth here is your assumption that I'm saying, in effect, that an invasion amounts to proof of wrongdoing. No one has said this, and our article doesn't say this. If you are unable to distinguish the (glaring) difference between the way British impressment was practiced and the way men were subjected to it, from the US draft board and the way men were treated during that time, then it would seem there is no more talking to you about this. Again, you fail to point at specific statements involving this  in our article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Grible, You seem to be suggesting that the large scale and prolonged impressment, the press gangs, merchant vessels left without sufficient crews, stolen cargoes and often ships, damaged American economy, while Britain was expanding their navy, was all just some notion with very little factual basis to it – all exaggerated to justify war. There was nothing that needed exaggerating. Like in any war, there were those who had their own reasons to support or oppose the war, but at this point I would think that the big picture would be square in front of you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously conscription methods became more humane over time, as did naval service in general. However, contrary to your opinion, an article in the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration says, "impressment proved to be a commonly accepted practice, perhaps even a necessary evil, among maritime powers in an age of routine warfare on the high seas." That included the U.S. which, as the article explains, rivaled GB in its impressment of each other's subjects or citizens. Nor was treatment of the impressed much better on USN ships. TFD (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We've been through this several times now. The 'idea' of impressment may have been "commonly accepted", which I've acknowledged, but it was anything but accepted the way, and in the capacity, it was practiced by the British. Please try to distinguish. You keep attempting to gloss over the fact that this was the main reason America declared war. The impressement on US navy ships, crewed by mostly volunteers, was negligible compared to the British practice. The impressed crews on British ships were deserting in great numbers because of poor conditions and poor pay, compounded largely because of the long drawn out war with Napoleon, and often became crew members on American ships because the pay and the conditions were much better. The "British Maritime Tradition" which you linked to got way out of hand in Britain's desperate attempt to fight Napoleon, and after numerous appeals from Jefferson, and then Madison, to curb their practice where it involved American merchant ships, which were repeatedly dismissed, war was finally declared. Horsman, p. 264, writes, that in a desperate effort to maintain their navy,  Britain was willing to risk war with the United States rather than to risk defeat by Napoleon.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Per your claim That included the U.S. which, as the article explains, rivaled GB in its impressment of each other's subjects or citizens.


 * Rivaled? The article you refer to says:
 * "This perceived flouting of freedom on the part of the British also clashed directly with America's emerging attitude regarding the rights of neutrals on the high seas. "
 * "Conversely, the United States, attempting to assert itself as an emerging naval power, not only championed the right of neutrals to engage in free trade with belligerents at war but also believed that neutrality protected all persons sailing under a sovereign flag regardless of national origin."
 * How would the U.S. then turn around and impress crews sailing under a neutral flag when it was so opposed to the practice?
 * "On May 28, 1796, Congress finally passed legislation (1 Stat. 477) to counteract the impressment threat. Intended to identify and repatriate American victims, the act authorized the government to appoint agents to investigate impressment incidents and pursue legal means to obtain the release of the seamen. "
 * If America rivaled Britain in the impressement efforts they would be going against their own principles and maritime laws they had enacted. Also, you seem to be confusing punishment onboard ships at sea, (discipline on the open sea was always strict, even brutal) from the routine brutality resorted to by press gangs on shore or along the docks. During the years leading up to 1812, the Americans had no desperate need to impress crews on a massive scale, as did Britain during their war with France, nor did America have many ships that would require such large scale forced recruitment, so the idea that America somehow "rivaled" Britain in the impressment effort simply doesn't add up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Lordy, we do seem to be circling the tree here are we not? First, Napoleon wasn't a threat to America. The reasons? Europe was never going to settle down for Napoleon to consider an invasion. Maritime issues dominated issues with France just as they did with Britain. American never asked for protection from Napoleon and didn't see it as needed. Secondly, there were more than a few in Britain's Government that considered that the fall of the Government of the United States was going to collapse under its own weight. America was not showing a unified stance at the time. Something that at least some in Britain saw a desirable. Third, New England didn't want a war with Britain because it would interrupt the fabulous profits that were being obtained. They didn't like sailors being impressed. They sure didn't like losing ships and cargo. But, they were still making profits hand over fist. That was what mattered to them. In other words don't get between me and my money, Yankee trader indeed. Forth, I've looked and I have found exactly one account of impressment on the American side. Frankly, given that it was a single account without any corroborating evidence, I consider American impressment bullshit.Tirronan (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The source I provided, which is published by the U.S. government, says that impressment was a common practice of the USN and the number of British subjects impressed rivalled that of the other side. I don't understand the relevance of your comments on Napoleon. The U.S. was neutral in the Napoleonic wars. TFD (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * American Impressment certainly happened during the Revolutionary War, I'm not sure it happened at any great scale in the lead up to/during the 1812 although the article clearly indicates that it was happening to some extent (accepted practice?). The article also contains a nice paragraph that illustrates what I'm trying to say "The impressment or forcible seizure of American seamen by the British Royal Navy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries has traditionally been viewed as a primary cause of the War of 1812. Americans at that time regarded impressment as a deliberate and dastardly act perpetrated by a foreign power against innocent men. Although modern scholars now question the true extent and impact of the practice as a precursor to war — between 1789 and 1815, the British impressed fewer than 10,000 Americans out of a total population of 3.9 to 7.2 million — impressment nonetheless stoked popular outrage, provoking Congress into legislative action and raising diplomatic tensions with Britain." That's basically my point above, it's not that it wasn't happening, but it was blown up and used to galvanise US public opinion to push for War after all this went on for 19 years before it became a "war issue". Also I'm again going to take up the topic of "stolen ships", the RN placed the responsibility for taking a prize on the Captain taking it and he had to explain his reasoning to a prize court. If RN cruisers were snapping up random ships they would rapidly fall foul of the Admiralty Courts in Halifax and find themselves on the hook for costs and damages. The ships being "stolen" were ships engaged in trade with France, or the French West Indies and being taken as prizes. Note the French were also taking US ships engaged in trade with the British and British Caribbean colonies. Britain needed American grain to feed the army in Spain, France needed W.Indies sugar for money and all sorts of other things, tar, timbers, etc. That could be obtained by trade with the US. Both sides passed laws and enforced blockades to try and stop the other. The same reason that American trade numbers boomed (and their need to employ the large numbers of British sailors the RN wanted), that they are the only major neutral trading with both, leads to the capture and impounding of cargos and ships. You could argue (the US did) that free trade and commerce should be a right, but the system of blockade and embargo was (and is) an accepted principle in international law. Also we are pre-Victorian "lassie-faire" economics, protecting your markets by passing weird rules about who can use your ports and ships was par for the course at the time - for instance the US would not have been allowed to trade with the French colonies except for the war making French shipping impossible. - Grible (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

−	 Now, - seriously - I think we need to take a breath team, everyone obviously has opinions and I doubt we are going to argue them out here, and it's not the place to do so. Furthermore, historians have been arguing about the relative placement of the various reasons that the US and Britain went to war more or less since the day after the end of the war, I doubt we are going to come to a more solid conclusion. I would happily keep debating the point, mostly because I'm stuck at home and I like talking about this kind of stuff, but. Moving On.... The Paragraph on Impressment, Trade and Naval Actions seems to be in a reasonable place right now. At least as far as actual Impressment goes. Does the bit on "Naval Actions" need to be there? If so (which it probably does) do we need the detail in the little belt bit? Can it be dropped to a few lines like the other two affairs as it has it's own article? Can we take a look at "Honour and the "second war of independence"" - as it's just a couple of lines, some of them about stuff covered in Naval Actions, and I honest think that there is a lot more to be said - especially as it ties directly back to the Impressment issue that we all so love.. So... to your sources Wikipedians! -Grible (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll make a few closing comments worth repeating, imo. In the early years America never had much of a navy to begin with, so the idea that the American practice of impressment rivaled that of Britain, is, in the words of a fellow editor here, mostly BS.  i.e.What would America do with all those men?? Also, wide scale impressment required a large navy to go out and round up ships and enforce the practice. Here again, the Americans had a small navy -- they certainly didn't have the extra ships to go out and patrol the high seas and numerous ports in the search for crews they didn't need in the first place.  Easy math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Little Belt, this was one of the major issues that bolstered the move to go to war, and most of the details should be left to stand. Our article only devotes a small paragraph to this topic in the first place. As I've always maintained, major articles like this should have a healthy amount of textual overlap for the various topics covered in a given dedicated article. An article should be written in a manner that it doesn't 'depend' on links to other articles. Many people make PDF files or hard copies of WP articles, where links are useless. I like to construct articles as if they were going to be a hard copy -- not link dependent. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not my words but those of an expert writing for the U.S. government. By 1812, the U.S. had 10 frigates, 8 smaller ships and 165 gunboats. They certainly could they have impressed several hundred sailors every year. If you had read the article you would know that the claim is not made that the U.S. impressed men from foreign ships, but that they were mostly captured on U.S. territory. Note that at the time about a quarter of U.S. merchant sailors were foreign nationals. TFD (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, the ships of the US navy were but a fraction of what the British navy had, who impressed some 10,000 or more Americans, not to mention the many thousands of others. The expert of the article is exaggerating when she or he claims that the US rivaled Britain in their impressment practice. Also, crews aboard merchant ships were not impressed and were paid well. You linked to yet another article that speaks of British impressment.
 * "To maintain their dominance on the seas, the Royal Navy relied on impressing sailors to man their ships. As a seafaring nation of immigrants mostly from the British Isles, American sailors were prime candidates for impressment into British service. American sovereignty and citizenship meant little to a monarchy that regarded its citizens as subjects indefinitely."
 * "despite repeated American requests the British did not rescind the Orders in Council. Instead, they issued more and the impressments continued."

There is no mntion of American impressment, and the attempt to pass this idea off as something that "rivaled' the British pratice is becoming a little much at this point, with no sources to explain matters in no uncertain terms. Can you provide us with a source that gives us more than empty and general claims? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I provided a reliable source that the U.S. impressed sailors. 10,000 U.S. sailors impressed by GB over 15 years works out to several hundred sailors impressed each year, a number which would not be outside the realm of possibility for the USN. TFD (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You provided a source that lacks clarification and, like you, doesn't address the major reality involved. John Deeben notes that there were 50 impressed Englishmen aboard the Constitution, and some aboard the Hornet, but again, this is incidental impressement, the likes of which was accepted, so we've been told, and is hardly anything that compares to the British practice. His language is a bit fuzzy also: American complicity in press gang activity appeared to be widespread, rivaling some of the State Department's myriad evidence about American victims. (emphasis added)  i.e. The State dept had "myrid" evidence against the British indeed. In order for America to 'rival' the British they would of had to impress tens of thousands of men over a 20 year period. Since the Americans never had much of a navy to begin with there was simply no call for that, esp since America was not at war with the likes of Napoleon as was Britian. They also did not have the extra ships they could commit to this end. I've no doubt that 'some' impressment occurred at the hand of the American's, on American soil, but they were not patrolling the high seas, making off with crews, cargoes and ships, or lurking off the English shore and engaging in the practice in such a massive and prolonged capacity. There is clearly no 'rivalry' here. Is there some other notable source that says in no uncertain terms how the American's were of supposed to 'rival' the British practice? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the Americans would have to impress tens of thousands of men in order to match the British impressment of thousands of Americans. I estimate that they would have had to have impressed hundreds of British subjects each year in order to match the British. Fifty men on one ship could add up to hundreds if all ships were considered. In any case Wikipedia policy requires us to accept facts in reliable sources, rather than conduct our own original research. TFD (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Blur... This is really getting incoherent and non responsive and amounts to original research. You're ignoring the tens of thousands of British impressed as compared to maybe a few hundred on the American side. Multiple RS's say some 10,000-15,000 Americans were impressed. RS's say Britain had to resort to large scale impressment to expand their navy and counter the threat of a Napoleon victory. RS's say Britain had hundreds of warships while the Americans had six. Please don't recite policy about RS when you continue to ignore nearly all of them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The comparison is not between the number of sailors impressed by GB and the U.S., but the number of American soldiers impressed by GB and the number of British sailors impressed by the U.S. Most sailors impressed by GB were British subjects on British territory. GB impressed approximately 10,000 U.S. sailors in the 15 years leading up to 1812. While the U.S. impressed fewer British sailors, it was also a substantial number, according to the source. TFD (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is still continuing; the article doesn't say that impressment was an accepted practice, it says, "it was the accepted practice of the era for nations to retrieve seamen of their own nationality from foreign navies during times of war". That doesn't necessarily mean by impressment. Accepted practice in this instance means it was the internationally agreed custom. International law at the time was a collection of widespread customs and beliefs practiced by nations and this was one of them (as was the stop and search of neutral vessels and the confiscation of contraband). Nor does the article suggest that levels of impressment were equal between nations, so I don't see a reason to discuss that. It does say that the US impressed British sailors, which is correct, but doesn't mention figures.--Ykraps (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * TFD Number of impressed Americans v British, yes. You were given the numbers and explanations as to why the Americans didn't have the need, or the means, to impress so many thousands of British. There's no 'rivalry'. I've addressed every argument you've offered, repeatedly. What have you accomplished? Can we move on please? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You should write to the U.S. Archives and complain to them. TFD (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Little Belt affair - Who fired first?
 – History is filled with examples of smaller ships initiating battles, esp as they concern single ship actions. The question that all the conjecture from Lambert and Mostert seems to avoid is why did Rogers fire on a smaller ship? The ships were not within hailing range until after sunset. Did Rogers fire a warning shot, first, which was ignored? Did not the Little Belt put up a fight and fired the first direct shot at the President, first, regardless? The account in the Little Belt affair article is how we should model our account here, if we must get into details. If we start including the speculations from cherry picked historians 200+ years later, we will only be perpetuating an uncertainty. Best to simply say that no one can say for sure. Also, please keep the not so veiled hostile remarks about "wasted space" and what's "decent" under wraps. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of the accounts of the battle that I have read all have reported that the who shot 1st is disputed. Ship size is often mistaken. I'm a bit confused as to why one ship would not fire on another because of size? These were national instruments of war, it wasn't a jousting contest. I don't believe that any ship refused to fire on smaller ships if it was decided to engage. I find it strange that the argument keeps showing up.Tirronan (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have not posted in a long time but thought you might be interested in an excellent Ph.D dissertation on the topic of the Little Belt. A Friendly Salute - Dwalrus (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * All that is required here, is to say that both sides claim the other fired first. As it was before you inserted the opinion of two selected historians.[] You are the one cherry-picking!--Ykraps (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The statement I added was completely neutral, and reflected the neutral assessment of several historians, in that no one can say for sure who fired first. The article wasn't clear on that point previously. You're the one who added the conjecture and speculation that attempted to establish the idea that President fired first. In the process it smoothed over the ideas of any warning shot fired 'first', that Little Belt made numerous attempts to evade President.  It also ignores the idea that, since the President was identified as a "vastly superior" vessel, then why didn't Little Belt strike her colors rather than attempting to take her on? And how is it that "two British deserters" serving aboard President were singled out and gave sworn testimony? Were they facing a military court? What about the sworn testimony of Rogers, his staff, or any of the other crew? But let's back up a bit.  Since when is firing the first shot automatically 'wrong'?  Since when is it 'wrong' for a superior force to take on a lesser opponent? We're talking about two war ships on the open seas during a time when American vessels and cargoes were being hijacked by the British in their attempt to find crews for their growing navy. The statement that no one can say for sure who fired first is point on, and there was nothing less than "decent" for being clear about that. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree as well with your statements Gwillhickers. I would not be common for a Ship of the Line to not fire on a frigate or any lessor ship. Nor would any ship of any navy that I have ever heard of. Further, should a captain make such a choice He'd be relieved of command. Who fired 1st is an attempt to score political points but this has no place in naval warfare.Tirronan (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That who fired first is impossible to determine, is a matter of opinion and not one shared by all historians. In order to keep the article neutral, you must balance the opinions of historians or lose the editorialising altogether. Your edit added nothing but unnecessary clutter to an already bloated article. Yes, there are other sworn statements but they are not all discussed at length in multiple reliable sources like the testimony of William Burkett, for example. Yes, the two British seamen were 'facing a military court'; in Nova Scoria, having desserted from President in disgust and escaped to Canada. Conjecture and speculation are perfectly valid things to have in a Wikipedia article if they are the subject of reliable sources. Your constant conjecture and speculation, on the talk page and in your edit summaries, on the other hand, is unhelpful. That you and Tirronan can't see what was wrong with firing first into a much smaller ship is indicative of your lack of expertise in this area. Rodgers certainly knew it was wrong, which is why he sent an apology the following morning, stating he would never have fired, had he known the disparity in force. No! Ships of the line did not routinely fire on frigates, particularly ones they weren't at war with! Why not just remove the 'impossible to tell' opinion, which as I said earlier, adds nothing, and then we don't need to have the argument at all. --Ykraps (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Other than Andrew Lambert, who are the "multiple reliable sources" that you state discussed at length William Burkett's allegations. Dwalrus (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Let me just nip this false narrative in the bud. Despite the misleading title of this section, this is not about who fired first. This is about whether the edit inserted by Gwillhickers here [] is necessary or not. My view is that it isn't and I removed it here []. Gwillhickers edit was not a neutral statement of fact, as he claims, but a historian's opinion and if we are introducing one opinion, we should balance it with an opposing one. As there is insufficient room in the article, I thought it better not to have the argument at all.--Ykraps (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to assume given your evasive answer that you don't actually have "multiple reliable sources." You made a false statement because it looked good. Is that what you want others to believe of you?Dwalrus (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lambert, Mostert and James all make mention of this testimony as do a number of other sources, which you are correct in that I no longer have. In addition, Hooks, a source you, yourself posted, alludes to a number of American seamen who swore President fired first. What I am trying to evade here is a narrative that distracts from the real issue, which is, is Mahan's unchallenged opinion necessary?. Particularly when so many historians, including Clowes, Rogers, Auchinleck, and the three already mentioned, have all manged to arrive at conclusion on the issue.--Ykraps (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I already know about Lambert and James, but I want page numbers on the other sources as I have copies of almost all of them. Where did Hooks claim that "American seamen" swore to the President firing first? Dwalrus (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ykraps, that you want to remove the "impossible to determine who fired the first shot" statement tells us you don't seem very inclined about including neutral statements. That you've already attempted to add the (completely) one sided conjecture from Lambert sort of substantiates this idea. You didn't seem too concerned about "bloat" and "clutter" at that juncture. There's simply too many variables involved with the incident for anyone to say for sure, especially since the incident happened at night. President was patrolling the coast for British war ships in light of the ongoing capture of American ships, their crews and cargoes, as has been explained for you several times now. Again, history is filled with examples of a greater force firing upon a smaller force, and again, Little Belt had every opportunity to strike her colors if her captain indeed detected a "vastly superior" vessel. If you feel anyone has a "lack of expertise" in such affairs you might want to tend to your own. Your discussion is filled with personal insults, and you've ignored many of the possibilities outlined for you, which further substantiates the idea that you're set upon giving the readers a rather biased account, as does Lambert, whose conjecture overlooks those possibilities. Our article already makes it clear that the War of 1812, and everything involved with it, is controversial and that opinions vary. Coverage of this incident likewise should be brief and neutral and not cluttered up with dozens of opinions from both sides of the fence. The known facts are less than conclusive for determining who fired first, and again, this doesn't establish any 'wrong' doing on anyone's part, all things considered, and there are many. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Using Lambert, and in spite of his rather narrow assessment of Rodgers as a commander, a couple of key points were added to our narrative on the Little Belt incident. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * TLDR! Your edit was not a neutral statement of fact, it was someone's opinion presented as a fact! Opinions need to be balanced and there is insufficient room to that here. This is not an article about the Little Belt affair! Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained why Mahan's opinion is so important and why you think it's necessary to have it in the article!--Ykraps (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article says opinions vary, and in the Little Belt's case, that no one can say for sure who fired first. All things considered, that is as neutral as you can get. Was not your edits opinion, based on a few select facts -- and far from neutral? Lambert bent over backwards to convey the idea that President fired first. Also, it wasn't just Mayhan's account that was added. While we're at it, using your own yardstick, can you tell us why Lambert's opinion is "so important"?  Last, I agree that this is not an article about Little Belt, an article with only a few statements of coverage, yet in the same breath you want explanations for Mayhan, while you offered none for Lambert – all this after complaining about bloat and clutter after making an edit like this. Best we all take a breather here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article says that both sides claim the other fired first, and that is all that is needed. We don't need Mahan telling us there's no point looking into it any further. Even Hooks hints the American court of enquiry was a whitewash, loaded with friendlies who were never going to find Rodgers negligent, that the speed of the verdict casts doubt on its impartiality, that it was a fait accompli and a show trial. The who fired first argument is a long road to go down and doesn't need to be opened here. When you inserted Mahan's opinion, you presented it as an unchallenged statement, that it was an absolute fact that it was impossible to tell. It suggests that there is no point in researching the matter further. That is not a neutral thing to do and Lambert's opinion is necessary to balance that.--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems such a small thing to have such a large argument about so it is obviously extremely important to you that Mahan's opinion remains in the article. I have done my utmost to answer all your questions, will you not do me the same courtesy? Why is it necessary to include it at all?--Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who initiated this "large argument", and yes, since neither view has enough facts to support the idea of who fired first, it is perfectly appropriate for us to point this out and say so, while we also let the readers know that there are a number of historians out there who are fair minded and objective enough to make that assessment. I've yet to see one source say, as a matter of absolute fact, who fired first, and who have provided enough facts to establish that conclusion beyond a shadow of a doubt. We have not provided any coverage/source in an effort to establish the idea that the American's fired first, as you did with Lambert, using his rather narrow and blatantly biased assessment. Doing so was anything but "balance". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters much at this point, as Little Belt's rigging was indeed cut to pieces, but round shot is required to severe a mast, and is perfectly capable of damaging several sails at once, as is grapeshot, so tagging the statement about damage to the rigging with the excuse that this is not "traditionally" the practice was uncalled for. You might do well to read the last sentence in the second paragraph in the lede of the Grapeshot article. This idea should not have to be recited for you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Guns of the period would also be double shotted. Grape in front of a ball was common in the 1st broadside.Tirronan (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! You don't sever the mast of a ship by trying to aim a single cannon ball at it, from a rolling and pitching gun platform! (particularly in the fucking dark.) You cut the rigging, which is easy to do, with the correct ordinance, and the mast snaps! Any masts brought down by roundshot would be as a result of stray shooting and not deliberate targetting! Now, do you have a source that specifically states the President aimed at the rigging, or not! That the rigging was damaged, is no indication that it was deliberately targetted!--Ykraps (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not until the end of August did the requested court of inquiry take the testimony of Commodore Rodgers and his officers. Stephen Decatur sat as president. Twelve days and fifty witnesses later, the court released its report, which accepted as fact all of the particulars in Rodgers’s account: that the engagement had begun with a single cannon shot from the Little Belt; that Rodgers had twice attempted to hail the English captain during the exchange, attempting to call a cease-fire; that the British were entirely responsible for the losses they had suffered. Captain Bingham and his officers were equally adamant in maintaining that the President had fired the first shot, and the British inquiry confirmed that version of events. The Naval Chronicle made a great deal of the sworn statements of two seamen, recorded in Halifax a month after the engagement, who claimed to have served aboard the President during the action and subsequently deserted. One stated that the action had commenced when a gun in the American frigate’s second division was fired by accident. His testimony, however, was discredited by his identification of the American lieutenant commanding the division as “Lieutenant Belling,” a name that did not appear on the President’s muster rolls. It will never be known which vessel fired first.

Toll, Ian W.. Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy (Kindle Locations 6525-6535). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

After the adoption of the non-importation law, Anglo-American relations continued to deteriorate. The American minister to Great Britain returned to the United States in early 1811, leaving only a charge d’affaires in his place. The following June the newly appointed British minister, Augustus J. Foster, arrived in Washington with a fresh set of demands. Foster threatened retaliation if non-importation were continued. He also declared that Britain would not lift the Orders-in-Council until France had suspended her decrees for all neutral nations (and not just the United States) and had dropped her tariff and export restrictions as well. In short, the Orders would remain in force until British goods were freely admitted to the Continent.89 Two other developments contributed to the deterioration of Anglo-American relations in 1811. The first was the Little Belt incident, a kind of Chesapeake affair in reverse. In the hope of deterring impressments, the Navy Department had ordered the heavy frigate President (54 guns) to cruise off the American coast. On May 16 the President clashed with the much smaller Little Belt (20 guns), killing nine of her crew and wounding twenty-three others. The fight took place at night, and it was never clear who fired first. Most Americans saw the engagement as just retribution for the Chesapeake affair and celebrated accordingly. The British, on the other hand, were convinced that the President was guilty of unprovoked aggression, and some newspapers demanded retaliation.90 “The blood of our murdered countrymen must be revenged,” declared the London Courier. “The conduct of America leaves us no alternative.”91 The British government, however, chose not to make an issue of the affair.

Hickey, Donald R. The War of 1812 (p. 22). University of Illinois Press. Kindle Edition.
 * I've about had it with the Little Best affair. There is no way of knowing who fired 1st. And if anyone did they were not able to prove it.Tirronan (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tirronan. I added Toll, p. 323 as a corroborating citation for the statement in question. We can add others if necessary. I fail to see why saying no one can tell for sure who fired the first shot has been made such a big deal, as the facts on both sides of the fence are inconclusive, and firing first does not automatically establish some sort of wrong doing, esp between vessels of war. Hopefully we can move on and tend to the sorry state the citations are in. As was indicated here a few days ago, this article needs much work in terms of citations needed and page numbers missing - dozens and dozens of them. I haven't combed through edit history to see who's responsible, but the editor(s) who added dozens of Lambert and James citations failed to include page numbers in very many cases. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If you notice my citations, when they don't provide page number then I delete the statement and replace it with my own sentence and RS citation. If they can't be bothered I'll be dammed if I will search an entire book. The flags have been up long enough. Wikipedia policy is clear. If you don't provide citation it can be challenged and removed. Lambert is a pretty good source as long as he it talking about the Royal Navy. After that well... Read Rosenvelt's book where he tears apart James book. Be warned Rosenvelt is an outright bigot by today's standards. There are passages in his book that make me cringe. But, the man was sharp as hell and his work is well researched. Just treat him accordingly. I tend to use the ten-foot pole option. Reference of last resort. I read Lambert's book, it is outright offensive towards Americans which colors my view of him as a historian. I use him when it comes to matter directly related to the RN, and for little else.Tirronan (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)



Little Belt affair - continued

 * Tirronan — Just as a general comment, there is no official list of reliable sources that editors must blindly adhere too. Editors make that decision. If a sourced statement comes off blatantly biased to the point where it's ignoring all the other facts and possibilities, we can act on that statement.  Also, I'm not sure if a total rewrite of the section in question is the way to go, however, I've no issues with trimming redundant and overly tangential material. Yes, as you say, the article is under review and it's appreciated that you're bringing this to our attention before marching through the section with an editor's axe. (Not that you intended to do so -- but I've seen this happen more times than I care to count. It's just too easy to make deletions of someone else's time and effort-- no reading, writing and sourcing required, just chop-chop. Best to go one step at a time, imo.) As concerns the statements that need citations and page numbers, I can live with them if it's intended that they'll be fixed, which I, at least, intend to do.  At least they serve to tell us what needs fixing.  :-)  Otoh, your last sizable edit looks fine by me.    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ykraps — Little Belt's rigging was cut to pieces and at least one of her masts received shot and was cut in two. Even though it was dark, with somewhat rough seas, it goes that the rigging was targeted, and that the guns were also aimed in that general area. Or are you also assuming that the grapeshot was only fired at the hull?? It's like you're trying to say that even though a man took a swan-dive into a swimming pool on a hot day, there is no source that says he intended to go swimming. Along with your take on the sort of damage round and grape shot can't do to the rigging, this too is becoming nonsense. And please keep the foul mouth under wraps. At this point it's seems that you're just arguing in anger. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What I am questioning here is use of the word 'aim'. Aiming is a deliberate action; you cannot accidently aim at something. You are insinuating, with its use, that President deliberately fired high to disable the vessel with minimum loss of life. I find that unlikely, because firstly the ammunition used did not lend itself to that purpose, secondly, I have never seen that argument in a source, and thirdly, Rodgers did not mention it at his hearing. If the guns had been loaded with chain or bar shot, you might reasonably assume that cutting the rigging was his intention. The primary purpose of roundshot is to damage the hull and the primary purpose of grape shot is anti-personel. Sources do not say where the rigging was cut; it is as likely that it was severed at the bottom when President swept the deck with grape (much of the rigging is attached to the deck). Does the source say that President 'aimed' at the rigging? If it does not, you are indulging in original research.--Ykraps (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Lille Belt, had holes in her hull as well. She almost foundered because of it. Given the action was at night, and the relative height difference, I'd be shocked if most of the fire didn't end up in the rigging and masts. Given the damage both ball and grapeshot were being used.Tirronan (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added a statement to this general effect, that the hull had several holes near the waterline. (Toll, 2006, pp. 322–323) Sometimes, however, if it was intended to take a vessel as a prize, efforts were taken to only target the rigging, keeping the hull in tact as much as possible. In Little Belt's case, as we know, she incurred damage above and below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * — The whole idea of original research is only an issue if someone is trying to advance an unusual or bizzar idea that is not supported by the sources. Anytime a gun is fired it is aimed, either in a general or in a tactical sense. You need a specific source that spells this out verbatim? That the rigging was cut to pieces tells us that the effort was intentional, as taking out the rigging was a common place effort during such battles and could be effected with round, grape or chain-shot. In a raking position, one round shot or grape shot could go through multiple sails at once.  Btw, what source says in no uncertain terms that there was no chain-shot aboard the President? Once again, grape and round shot are perfectly capable of disabling rigging. Fail to see why this is a big issue, as this just involves basic and common battle tactics, not a POV issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about now? The gun might be aimed but it doesn't necessarily hit what it's aiming at! If you aim a gun at someone in a crowd and it hits another, that doesn't mean you were aiming at the shot person, you were still aiming at the first person! Just because the rigging was cut, it doesn't mean the rigging was targetted. Rodgers, at his hearing, makes it abundantly clear his guns were loaded with grape and roundshot. Now, does the source say specifically that President aimed at the rigging? If it does not, your edits are original research and are pushing an unsourced, non-neutral, idea.--Ykraps (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ykraps, here are a pair of citations. which I have provided through this discussion. Accusing another editor of WP:OR is strictly wiki-lawyering. Do you have something to offer besides opinions? Because up to now, all I have seen is you arguing and adding NOTHING. If you want an argument then join a debating club. If you have something constructive to add do so. Right now all I see is that you are obstructing editing. Now either help or shut up.Tirronan (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Insisting that the article accurately reflects what's in reliable sources, is not Wikilawyering and that the problematic sentence has now been removed, [] rather suggests that there was no supporting source for it.--Ykraps (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the dispersion of early 19th naval guns, the angle that a bigger ship would be firing down at a smaller one, and the fact that visibility was crap, Aiming was a loose term. That still doesn't change the fact that you are not lifting a finger. For all your claims that you are busy, you seem to have lots of time for "insisting".Tirronan (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you still arguing that President deliberately targetted the rigging? There is no evidence for that and in any event, the issue has been resolved. Time to let it go.--Ykraps (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Rodgers could see that the other ship had a lower profile and a lighter broadside than the President. She was no frigate. Under the President’s heavy cannonading, the smaller vessel’s main topsail yard came down, her colors were either hauled down or shot away, and most of her battery was silenced. Fifteen minutes after the first gun, Rodgers ordered his crew to cease fire. Toll, Ian W.. Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy (Kindle Locations 6505-6508). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. The Little Belt had suffered badly, with her hull pierced in several places between wind and water, her sails and rigging “cut to pieces,” and her starboard pump destroyed. Nine of her men were killed and twenty-three wounded, several of them mortally. Captain Bingham’s spirited refusal of assistance almost resulted in the loss of his ship. When a gale came up two days later, the sea worked into the Little Belt through a dozen different holes in her hull, and she nearly foundered. Toll, Ian W.. Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy (Kindle Locations 6515-6519). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
 * Ykraps Once again, since the rigging was cut to pieces this should tell anyone that the effort was intentional. You originally based your contention on the idea that only chain-shot was used to take out sails, and it was asked by what source does it maintain that a war ship like President wasn't equipped with chain shot.  It was a common practice to disable the rigging so a ship could not manuver well.  Once this was effected then the attacker(s) would ease into a raking position and fire away, where, once again, round or grape shot could tear through several sails, ropes and even a mast, all at once. With all the damage to the rigging you're still trying to tell us no one was taking aim. Amazing.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether it was a common practice or not is irrelevant. That still doesn't prove that that was Rodgers' intention. What are you not getting here?--Ykraps (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I think it's worse than I thought. Are you speculating that Rodgers, had his guns loaded with roundshot and grape, attempted to disable Little Belt by targetting the rigging (with the wrong ammunition), then having disabled her, reloaded and slaughtered all those British sailors? You know it's a fact that he loaded his guns with grape and roundshot, don't you? That he testified to it at his hearing? That it is in Hooks' book; a book that you claim to have read?--Ykraps (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added some stuff to the Little Belt paragraph to try and provide context and Bingham's claims. If you have objections to the paragraph voice them. If you want to fight the action blow by blow can I please suggest you go write it all up with copious sources on the actual page for that action Little Belt Affair. I haven't had coffee yet today. -Grible (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
Are there any neutrality issues that still need to be addressed? If not it's long over due to rid ourselves of the neutrality banner and start getting the citations in order, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm probably going to have a pass over some sections tomorrow or Monday, including the lede, just tidying up and moving things so it reads right, my pet hate is the "oh and another thing" feel of some sections. But I'll try really hard not to change much other than flow and not break any cites. Except I'm definitely going to change abduction for something more neutral, (sorry Gwill). I would like someone else to read the sections at the bottom on long term consequences. Some of the things mentioned in the US and Indigenous bits seem to overlap, or should possibly be moved around, and (the reason I'd like some else to read it) the US bit has some stuff about the expansion into the south at the expense of the locals, that is a bit... triumphalist?
 * Relatedly can we pick a way of referring to the native peoples? The article has Indians, Native Americans, Aboriginals and Indigenous. I know the currently correct thing is Native American, but in context I doubt the various native tribes and nations considered themselves "American" in the way we are using it throughout the article, but I am not of this culture(s) and so have no idea how they would prefer to be referenced, is there a Wiki policy on this? anyone? -Grible (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Native American is only the pc term in the U.S. I suggest we use the terminology used in reliable sources about the War of 1812, which is Indians. It's the term that was used in contemporaneous documents. TFD (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with both Grible and TFC. The term "Native American" was pushed into the political/social realm by white politicians trying to look 'correct' in front of their critics and constituents. Indeed the Indians were not Americans then, and today, most prefer to be referred to by their tribal names. This divisive term also implies that the millions of Americans who were born in America, who have/had parents, grandparents, great-grand parents, etc, etc, are native to no country. Yes, we can refer to them as Indians, as most of the sources do, and in some cases, by their tribal names where appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have had a pass over Lede and fixed a few typos, spellings down as far as "Forces". I don't think I've changed anything that will cause contention, but if I did then lets talk. Also learned about linking sections and screwed up my pipes. Don't be mean. -Grible (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I have only read a small portion of the article but I am already seeing issues. For example:
 * It glosses over Jefferson's determination to go to war and Gallatin's advice to deliberately confuse the impressment issue by not issuing naturalization certificates.
 * Source that and add it to the bit about Internal American politics? -Grible (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the source I was looking for but N.A.M. Rogers (Command of the Ocean p.565) says, "... compounded by the refusal of Jefferson and Madison to issue any official citizenship documents. Their position was that all persons aboard American ships were to be regarded as US citizens without further proof. This claim, unsustainable in US or any other law, was designed to make negotiation impossible. Behind it lay the advice of Albert Gallatin (....) who calculated that 9,000 men (...) in American deep sea merchant ships, were British subjects". Which might do. Not sure if it wouldn't be better in the impressment section?--Ykraps (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a good source for the reluctance to issue papers mentioned in the impressment section (so good that I think it might be the current cite), There is definitely something to be said about the US gov position being backed by their understanding that they too needed these sailors, although there is already a bit about large numbers of British sailors being in American shipping in the earlier paragraph. Basically, I think the points are covered, but if you want to name check Gallatin as being behind a more deliberate policy to cloud the issue by not giving out papers then inserting that might be possible. I just don't have the energy to re-do this paragraph again just now, I tried but it came out slightly too far to the British POV and implying the Americans were just whinging about nothing so I scrapped the edit. -Grible (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It infers that all cargoes and ships were open to seizure when in fact only contraband was taken and only ships that tried to run were seized.
 * I'm not sure it does, there are mentions of contraband, and trade with France etc - Grible (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say that in most cases, the British government compensated American ship owners for their losses.
 * With above, source this and perhaps adding a line and tightening language in the trade bit of the Impressment, Trade and Naval Actions para -Grible (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Re Little Belt affair, why is it necessary to reitterate Rodger's claim that the British fired first, after already mentioning that both sides claim the other did?
 * I think the Little Belt para (in I,T and NA) should be chopped entirely to "Also the little belt affair (linkie)" so I'm not going to add to this bit! -Grible (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no period given for the 15,000 Americans impressed. Wolf says it's for the period 1793-1812 so this directly contradicts the earlier figure of 10,000 for the same period.
 * After I took out the line about releases from Lloyd it kind of orphaned this context sentence, perhaps we should use a range 6000-15000 throughout the article? This comment also holds for your last two points-Grible (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If I get time, I'll have a better look later.--Ykraps (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wolf's 15,000 figure seems to have been added purely to give creedence to Monroe's claim but Wolf covers a period more than twice as long as Monroe's.
 * There is nothing in the article to say figures are disputed and that some historians claim that the number of impressments has been wildly exaggerated.


 * It would be much easier for all if we quoted the sentence or passage in question, or at least give its location. e.g. Specific section, 3rd paragraph. Re:Wolf. He has consulted a number of noted historians including Zimmerman, Hutchinson, Hickey, Brunsman, Taylor. In footnote 'f', cited by Wolf, its says that estimates for impressed vary, and that 10,000 is a conservative estimate, while other sources often give 15,0000.  As impressment goes, the article refers to the years leading up to the war.  "Widely exaggerated" is very POV, implying that most historians are American and are liars. Re:Rodgers. He was the commander of President, so his actual account is important. We can also add the claim made by Little Belt commander,  Arthur Bingham's, for contrast. As I mentioned before, recently, the Little Belt affair was one of the big issues that led to war, so we should cover it accordingly, and since there is only a small paragraph devoted to the topic, there's no reason to 'chop' at anything. As mentioned, we should refer to the sources if we are going to challenge anything in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are doing by repeating Rodgers claim and the 15000 figure is doubling up on the American POV. It appears to be an attempt to hide an opposing POV by smothering it with repetition of the view you wish push. Wolf's work has not been cited by anyone of any note, so should be treated with caution. He appears to have doubled up on some of his figures, and whereas he confidently asserts a figure of 15000, his table on p52, Impressments by Year, shows no more than 7000 between 1793 and 1812. Also, can you explain why the Little Belt Affair was a "major cause of the war"? I can't believe America would declare war over the issue, and the British government let the matter drop.--Ykraps (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence "However, by 1812 more than 15,000 Americans had been impressed[54]" which is in the middle of the (thrice cursed) impressment section is actually the one I would take exception to. It directly contradicts the earlier parts of the para including the bit you mentioned and probably represents the upper limit of the accepted range for American impressments, it's also not really needed there as the numbers have been discussed earlier and appears to have been added only to support Jefferson's assertions, and Madison's list which is the point being discussed at the time. "Widely Exaggerated" is indeed a bit POV, but nobody is actually putting that in the article - I've mentioned before, and I think Ykarps is making the same point - not to put words in their mouth - that the impressment issue was definitely made much of in the American press and political spheres in order to whip up support for war. Nobody is minimising the actual impressment issues and we've discussed them ad nauseum, but perhaps a mention in the American political bit about the yellow press might not be too POV, I can dig up that article on "Subject vs Citizen" again and try to find a definitive quote time permitting. -Grible (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Causes or controversies leading to war have always been "whipped up" by the press. Can we also assume the British press down-played the matter? Wolf, 2015, p. 46, mentions that John Adams made the highest estimate for impressed Americans at 36,000, but he goes on and says, "Historians have had as difficult a time reaching a reliable number. There are many scholars who concur with James Zimmerman’s estimate. 38   Zimmerman figured that 9,991 seamen were impressed and applied for release as American citizens between 1797 and January 1, 1812." It would seem Wolf's account is among the most objective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Re: Little Belt, I guess my opinion on article length and interlinks is only my own, so if we want to add a bit from Bingham then that would probably be for the best balance wise. Do we also want to add a couple of line summaries to the other two affairs (at risk of making the whole thing longer still)? -Grible (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Contention: "There is no period given for the 15,000 Americans impressed. Wolf says it's for the period 1793-1812 so this directly contradicts the earlier figure of 10,000 for the same period." The lede in fact says, "from 1793 and 1812 over 15,000 Americans were forced into British service." This date range has just been added to the main body of text. There is no "contradiction", however. Hickey, and others, give us 15,000, while Wolf only asserts that 10,000 is a conservative estimate. The lede also asserts, "historical accounts on the causes, battles and outcome of this war can sometimes vary." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments above [] and bear in mind that estimates go as low as 4000.
 * I would like to cut the Line However, from 1793 to 1812 over 15,000 Americans had been impressed[55] from the second paragraph of the Impressment section. It's just dropped in, and was added to counter the (now removed) lines about numbers of releases. I suggest that using 10,000 impressed Americans, which is the cite from Hickey earlier in the first paragraph and appears to be the general number quoted from Zimmerman onwards by most sources. Hickey himself seems to have been quoted in support of the 15,000 in his 1989 book, both here and in the lede and 10,000 in his 2005. He actually says himself in his 2005 book that he is correcting Myths so I would be inclined to go with his later more up-to-date work. I've put a bracket of 6000-15,000 in the lede, and would prefer to correct it using the 2005 Hickey source as well - but since it's the lede I wanted to talk about it first. -Grible (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "It doesn't say that in most cases, the British government compensated American ship owners for their losses." From what source are we getting this? How long did this take to effect? Not until after the war? Having no ship(s), were the ship's owners also compensated for all the potential business they lost? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ykraps — Rather than assuming there is an attempt to hide the British POV it would be best if you could provide sources that offer something otherwise. 15,000 is a common estimate, and to brush it off as just some POV with no rational basis behind it more than suggests that you are rather fixed on your own. Yes, the Little Belt affair gave much impetus to the decision to go to war, as it was patrolling the American coats in search of American merchant vessels to prey on, with the broad-brush pretext of looking for British deserters. This is not to say that the British practice of impressment was not the major cause. Also, Wolf's dissertation has already been addressed for you, that his work is relatively recent and that dissertations are generally not referred to by other Phd historians, as they have all authored their own. As mentioned, Wolf offers a very impressive list of sources, both secondary and primary, so this apparent attempt to shoot the messenger on such a superficial basis comes off a little less than sincere. Also, the 4,000 estimate is a bit ridiculous, esp since there were well over 10,000 applications for release submitted by American seaman alone, which is also supported by Zimmerman, Hickey and Horsman. Your POV is welcomed but we need sources, and something more than a critical POV about sources that do not coincide with it. You were also asked for sources in regards to your "widely exaggerated" claim and for the claim that the British government compensated the owners for their stolen ships. Again, when did that occur - well after the war? Certainly not during the war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain I've already given you sources for all these things. Wolf himself cites figures of 4,000 and 6,000 on p47 of his dissertation. Among others, Latimer (War with America p.2), Bickham (The Weight of Vengeance, p.31), Lambert (The Challenge p.27), Rogers (Command of the Ocean p.566) say figures were exaggerated. With regards to Wolf's work, please read Reliable_sources. Wolf's dissertation has not been cited in literature nor supervised by recognized specialists in the field. It should be treated with caution and certainly shouldn't be preferred to works by eminent historians. Frei (Broke and the Shannon, p54) explains the pre-emption system. Hickey, (A Forgotten Conflict, p12) briefly mentions how most of the contraband was paid for. It occurred before the war. Why on earth would Britain pay for prizes taken during the war?--Ykraps (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ykraps, Latimer indeed makes the claim of exaggerated figures, but fails to clarify in what capacity, whether this involves historians overall, or the proponents of war. Here is his statement, in context: "The event of impressment of American seamen, both illegal in principle and unjust in practice, has often been exaggerated." Before trying to dismiss Wolf, to reiterate, who holds a Phd in history, you might want to look into his background. As pointed out, his is the the only in-depth study of the impressment of US sailors since James Zimmerman's book. A distinguished and valuable source. I'm well aware of WP Scholarship and it merely says that dissertations and such should be used with care, so, once again, this incessant attempt to smite sources you're not happy hasn't carried far, as you haven't presented anything that impeaches his work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be treated with care? Isn’t that exactly what I’ve been saying! [][][] Can you explain how you've treated it with care because to my eyes, it appears to be the only source you've given any consideration to? You have produced nothing to support it and dismissed all sources that contradict it.--Ykraps (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, there were not "10,000 applications for release submitted by American seaman alone", there were 10,000 applications from seamen purporting to be American; a difference you and Wolf have spectacularly failed to understand.--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wolf says, "Far more Americans were pressed in the Royal Navy than previously believed" (p. iii). He then provides his own calculations that place the figure at over 15,000 (p. 52). The problem is that when new sources say old sources were wrong, we need to show that experts accept the new figures before we report them as fact or even report them as opinion, per weight. Incidentally, Wolf identifies 1,321 duplications in the lists. So these cannot be explained by common names. TFD (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ykraps - The British considered many of the applicants to be their subjects, but the men in question, obviously, did not, and chose to become Americans, and considered themselves as such – something the sources, including Wolf, btw, have always been able to distinguish. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No! Many did not consider themselves American, many considered themselves British but thought they could escape from the Royal Navy by claiming to be American. This was explained and sourced for you when we discussed Madison's list earlier.--Ykraps (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality, continued...
At this point I'm sure we all realize that the sources have always varied. Yes, Wolf, among others, gives us the 15,000 figure, but, as was already discussed, he believes a conservative estimate would be around 10,000, and indeed takes into account any duplicate names. I've no issues with mentioning that estimates have been exaggerated on the one hand, and down played on the other. The bottom line, however, still remains the same, that the British practice of impressment was massive and prolonged and went much further than just rounding up deserters, so much so that it led to war. Those in Congress who opposed the war, like the Loyalists during the Revolution, by and large often had (large) business arrangements with the British and saw the war, understandably, as something that would compromise such ventures. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are saying that because the U.S. went to war, the issue must have been serious. But the U.S. has often gone to war on inaccurate or fabricated information. I don't think we should follow the approach that the approach that the U.S. is always right and it's our role to defend them. I would point out too that contrary to myths about the Eastern Liberal establishment, the majority of Northesterners are not wealthy. While they might have opposed war because it would destroy their economy, that's not an ignoble reason.
 * Incidentally, even today, the U.S. does not recognize a right of all citizens to renounce their citizenship. They cannot do it in order to evade military service and if abroad can only do it if they appear in person before a consul and sign a renunciation. Did any of the naturalized Americans do that?
 * TFD (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really - some in fact did go through a process to take US citizenship there's a line in the article about it, but since the US wasn't issuing papers anyhow even to born-Americans, it made little difference to the British. -Grible (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the issue led to war it was serious, an idea that is covered well in many sources, and that this has to be recited for you would seem to indicate that we're going to embark on another one of these highly argumentative excursions. As for the legality of renounced citizenship, this issue was tested during the American Revolution, where the colonists renounced their 'citizenship' with Britain. Indeed, Britain maintained the same failed argument, that the colonists had no legal standing to do so -- one of the many issues that led to war.  The War of 1812 wasn't over the legality of citizenship where American seamen, legal or otherwise, were carted away, along with cargoes and ships, to help Britain with its war in Napoleonic France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposing a war because the parties in question were more concerned with their interests than they were national sovereignty and security, while not an "ignoble reason", certainly doesn't carry nearly the same weight. They were not the first ones to hold their own interests over the common interest, and unfortunately they won't be the last. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Supporting starting one because you see the possibility for ethnically cleansing a bunch of native tribes and pushing your territories into the lucrative tribal fur trapping lands in the North-West, also taking control of the Lakes and their trade routes from the despised British isn't a great look either. The failure of their government to take the treaty offered in 1806/7, apparently because Jefferson was foaming at the mouth to have another pop at the British after his completely failed trade embargo which had to be cancelled, the agitation of the Democratic-Republicans to annex bits of Spanish/Indian territory in the south and push the Shawnee et al out of the trapping regions in the North, also to take the Canadas (just by marching) and therefore have a United States which controlled the whole of the Americas (and balanced up the Southern/Northern divide again after the Louisiana Purchase), all of these are much larger Political, National Sovereignty and security goals. As always the answer is going to be somewhere between these extreme positions. Do we think the fate of 6-15,000 sailors was the major reason for war? The given reason perhaps, I agree that certainly the American public were told they were going to war over impressment, and the "violation of honor" involved in being made to comply with the blockade/trade rules of Britain (and France). But there is a whole school of historical thought that goes down the alternative "expansionist" route. But again... it's not our job to figure this out, just present the information that can be sourced, offer the cites and hopefully when someone Googles "War of 1812" because they heard it mentioned on the tv during their favourite sitcom and gets this article then they get a solid grounding in these complex issues and a lot of links and reading suggestions if they are interested. I am - these little arguments and working on the article with you fine people is certainly improving my knowledge of the details of the period! Also I keep buying books... -Grible (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S - "rounding up deserters" implies you think they were just hunting men who jumped ship, not the larger numbers of Brits who were, for lack of a better term, "draft dodging" by working in the US merchant marine.-Grible (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue is not how someone became a U.S. citizen, but how they renounced their UK nationality. TFD (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Ol' King George (or rather HMG) was of the opinion you could not do that, nope, nope, nope. -Grible (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Grible – "Deserters" was just a general reference and I've already acknowledged the issue of renounced citizenship and the seamen considered, by the British, to still be British subjects above and beyond the idea of desertion, but thanks anyways for reminder. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * TFD – We've been through this. Yes, the seamen in question considered themselves Americans and were hauled off to fight in someone else's war, and that they were taken off American vessels, along with the cargoes, leaving many vessels unfit for sea duty. This was much more than an issue of legality, as you seem to forget. The idea that the overall affair was not a serious enough issue that led to war is a little rife, and not supported by the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder why Vietnam War draft dodgers skedaddled to Canada, when all they had to do was say "I consider myself a Canadian citizen" and gone home. Oh right, aliens and dual nationals can also be drafted by the U.S. TFD (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD — You're still stuck on legalities, and your analogy to 20th century Vietnam, aside from being incompetent, isn't an issue that led to its own war. Once again, the issue was that many impressed Americans, and those that considered themselves as such, as did the colonists who broke from Britain, as was already explained, was one of the major causes of the war. Shall we waltz around the block with this again? Once again, the argumentative side issues don't involve specific article improvements. Unless you have specific issues with specific statements in the article, you should drop the stick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Grible — "Do we think the fate of 6-15,000 sailors was the major reason for war?" - Grible As was explained, it was more than just the sailors, it was that they were taken off American ships, along with the cargoes, very often rendering the ships unfit for sea duty, by the British navy, often lurking off the American coast, severely impacting the American economy, all the while Britain was expanding its navy and reaping the benefits of cargo and captured ships, which of course they put to use before they ever were returned -- unless you believe they put them all in dry dock and just looked at them. The entire and prolonged affair was an affront to American sovereignty and its economy. Both Jefferson and Madison made numerous appeals to end the practice, but they were ignored. What would you have done? Submit yet another appeal? As Horsman, 1962, points out, (p.264) the British were not so much concerned about risking war with America as they were about being defeated by Napoleon. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And has been explained to you, ships were not stripped of their cargo, only contraband was confiscated, something allowed under international law, and in most cases the ship owner was compensated for their loss, something Britain was under no obligation to do, so Britain didn’t really profit from it. Ships could only be taken if they acted suspiciously by running or refusing to be searched. Hickey says that, following the Essex decision, no more than 400 ships were taken, and most of those were returned to their owners. No they were not used, they were taken to a port where a prize court decide what was to be done with them. What use would the Royal Navy have for a severely under-armed merchant ship? Please stop speculating! Neither Jefferson nor Madison made appeals; they both made demands and refused to compromise on any issue. The Monroe-Pinkney treaty was extremely favourable to the US and would have solved nearly all the problems but Jefferson wouldn’t put it before congress, claiming he did not want peace with Britain! Your point blank refusal to even consider that the US might have been guilty of wrong doing, is seriously affecting your ability to edit this article in a neutral fashion.--Ykraps (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, impressment was clearly an issue, and the "affront to American sovereignty" was certainly in the minds of the US government, along with some Liberal ideas regarding rights of man, Subjects vs Citizens etc that Percival and Liverpool would have hated! But Jefferson (and to a lesser extent Madison) were both of the Demo-Rep Central/South where agriculture was the major economy, their political rivals (the Federalists) were centred in the North-East where trade was the major economy. The Federalist were against the war. Jefferson is on record as wanting to take Canada, others in his party were pushing for a resolution to the Indian 'problem' in the Floridas (there is also a running land dispute with France/Spain down there). Jefferson and later Madison tried an economic embargo against Britain (and France) which destroyed the trading economy of the Americas, so clearly they're not overly worried about the captured ships if they are happy to wreak it themselves. Once the war began Britain was still allowing trade to happen from the North-East, so in some ways the merchants up there probably got a better deal once war was declared! The US was offered concessions, but since taking Canada would give then a lever to force British participation in the Indian conflicts to end, and also get the millions of (1800s) dollars in fur trapping from the area - a nice economic boost, and they didn't care that the people being hurt were there Federalist opponents... Also consider for a second, that Madison put before congress bills to increase the Army. But not the Navy. In the lead up to a war you are claiming was all about shipping? Impressment was an issue, definitely, but please consider that the US "championing the rights of the neutral and the impressed man" might be a good slogan and a good way of whipping up the public to support a war. But does it really make complete sense? However I don't have to convince you; or you me, we just have to work together to improve the article! With that in mind I think I'll be learning more about 1800's politics this week to keep working down the page.... -Grible (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in other words, all the British had to do is decide if a ship was 'acting suspiciously' and they could board it, impress the crews and make off with the ship and its cargo. No more than 400 ships were taken? This hardly saves face. Seizing 400 American ships is tantamount to an act of war and isn't anything that can be excused because of any "international law", which was obviously exploited and abused. The continuous effort by the British to blow this off as something menial, or business as usual, only served to exemplify the arrogance in which they conducted themselves. Claiming that the British compensated the owners is like trying to exhonerate a bank robber, someone who makes off with goods by the threat of force, by claiming he gave the money back. "only contraband was confiscated..."? "only"? I wouldn't exactly try to downplay the issue with that. A ship filled with grain headed for France was considered "contraband". In fact, anything headed for France was no doubt considered "contraband". In other words, whether a ship was "acting suspiciously" or was carrying "contraband" was a call that was completely at the discretion of the British, and something they took complete advantage of. No one can blame Britain for trying to block trade with Napoleonic France, but to carry on as if this shouldn't have been any big deal for the Americans is an acute POV, the likes of which the article can do without. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ykraps — "Ships could only be taken if they acted suspiciously by running or refusing to be searched. Hickey says that, following the Essex decision, no more than 400 ships were taken." - Ykraps
 * I'm not trying to downplay anything; I'm not the one here with an agenda. It was, and still is, the legal right of nations at war to search neutral shipping for contraband. All a ship had to do to avoid being seized was to submit to a search. No, a ship full of grain would not be contraband, unless it was heading for a port where a large army was stationed (I'm sure I've explained this numerous times). I understand how you might consider this an abuse of power or arrogance and suggest you write to your own government about the foreign ships full of coal and oil that the USN have seized.[][]. You could draw a parallel with the war of 1812 if you really wanted to underline their hypocrisy.--Ykraps (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the continued and large scale practice of impressment, the press gangs, etc, was such an issue that it led to war. Re: the idea that this was only an issue "in the minds of the US government". Perhaps the continued impressment, hijacking of ships and cargo, was no big deal only in the minds of the British government. As was already acknowledged, the return of ships and compensation didn't occur until some time later. Did the British government also compensate the US government for the damage caused to the US economy, and the ships owners for all the business they couldn't conduct without their ships? "Jefferson and later Madison tried an economic embargo against Britain (and France) which destroyed the trading economy of the Americas, so clearly they're not overly worried about the captured ships if they are happy to wreak it themselves. Happy to wreck themselves?? This is really reaching, and reckless conjecture. Trade embargoes were attempted and they backfired and isn't anything that supports the idea that the Americans shouldn't have worried themselves over the loss of 100s of American merchant vessels and cargo, and the impressed crews.
 * Grible — "Again, impressment was clearly an issue, and the "affront to American sovereignty" was certainly in the minds of the US government, along with some Liberal ideas regarding rights of man, Subjects vs Citizens." - Grible

In any case, I appreciate your willingness to work together to improve the article. This can happen if we fairly and objectively represent both POVs. Currently the article does this, in the lede, and elsewhere, but I'm sure there is always room for improvement and that the various points of contention might be better clarified. I'd recommend that at this point we simply direct our attention at specific statements, rather than filling up the Talk page with lengthy and endless POV discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - I didn't say or mean "only" in their minds, like they were imagining it, I meant "playing a part in their thought processes". Please do consider that the US is not a monolithic entity, and Jefferson at a minimum certainly had an agenda beyond the maritime and appears willing to chuck his Federalist rivals under the bus (frigate) for it. Now, the article currently very carefully steps through the issues, which is fine, but it largely settles on the side of "the American's were being picked on and reacted to it", there's actually not much in there to advance the POV that "If you don't want your ship seized don't trade illegally and also employ British sailors then pretend they're American when asked". But that might be for the best. I'm really in awe of your continued source hunt btw, so I'm going to keep just basically copy editing to try and make it read more coherently, if I find anything I consider outrageous we can have another... five page... debate. -Grible (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, saying the impressment issue, etc, was "playing a part in their thought processes" is pretty much the same assertion, politely reworded. While America may not be a monolithic entity it was/is still a sovereign nation of people bound by a Constitution and laws, as was/is Britain. Jefferson's "agenda" and his attempts at trade embargoes, was something he believed would be in the national interest. I fail to see how Jefferson, who was very adamant about small central government that was answerable to the people, profited in this, which is what you seem to be suggesting by your reference to his "agenda". And rivaling parties have always "chucked" the other under the bus to one extent or another. As I'm sure you know, this is really nothing new or exclusive to American politics. "If you don't want your ship seized don't trade illegally and also employ British sailors then pretend they're American when asked". Illegal trade was a British perspective. Britain indeed was making demands on a neutral country's right to free trade and had no right to decide what was legal or illegal for other countries. The 'pretended' Americans, former British subjects, had every right to emigrate to America in search for a better life and more freedoms and to work for whomever they pleased. I believe this comes under the common heading of freedom and human rights.  That Britain went so far as to make mandates about such affairs only served to alienate themselves from America and impede any diplomacy process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific statements in/for the article
In any case, as I've said before, we can add more balance to certain ideas in the article if the majority of sources stand behind it. Again, we should direct our efforts at specific statements, or at specific proposals we can add to the article. We can start with what you would like the article to say about Jefferson, per sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

American Expansionism Section
Ok, era of good feelings people... I have moved around and edited this section to make it what I hope is more readable and less bitty, again if you disagree talk to me. I have some issues tho:
 * My first concern is that it still reads a bit "he said/she said" and that we name check and quote a whole bunch of historians in the main text rather than using them as sources of statements and beliefs. It reads a bit like "my historian is better than your historian" and I'm not convinced that it doesn't give some(?) of them undue weight - several don't have their own wiki pages for a start! - the quotes from actual historical figures are great, but historians opinions?
 * Secondly I would really like to expand upon the North-Western frontier, since it's at the root of a lot of the attitudes to Canada, and the Southern Expansionists down in Florida as the section is quite Canada centric just now. Does anyone want to chip in with some good sources? I've been reading Lambert's The Challenge today and he touches on some things, but he's a little one sided (comically so in places!) and I'd like another source to work along with him.
 * A comment about our sources and historians: When it comes to the established facts, names, dates, etc, most of the sources are point on with one another. Where they usually differ is when they characterize those facts with one sided or narrow opinion.  For example, Taylor, 2010, p.6, refers to Napoleon as a despot. Wolf, 2015, p.275, uses the term "Napoleonic despotism". Though these views might be widely shared, we of course leave such pov out of our equation when presenting matters as fact. It would be fair, however, to mention that Britain by and large regarded Napoleon as such - likewise with the American regard towards the British practice of impressment. When covering controversial events, we can also mention that a given historian is of one opinion while another holds a different estimation. Last, while a given topic may not have a Wiki-page, we shouldn't use this as a measure for determining weight in our coverage. Before we make any significant changes or additions in our coverage of affairs in the North-Western and Canadian theaters basic sample proposals should be presented and hammered out here in Talk first, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Napoleon was by definition a despot, a person who rules without any constitutional restrictions. I don't think that Americans would have referred to impressment as despotism. TFD (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did Napoleon impress the British to fight in his war on the same scale as the British, or at all? Would it of mattered to the British if he had a Constitution or legal standing to do so? Once again, it's not a matter of legality, as we've discussed before, but one of national interest. The above discussion regards how we characterize people and events -- no one has suggested that we refer to impressment as despotic, tyrannical, or with any other such adjective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See Grande Armée: Napoleon conscripted 2,175,335 men. The U.S. drafted 2.2 million Americans and aliens during the Vietnam War. TFD (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Raw numbers out of context are sort of meaningless -- only good for show. We've discussed the differences between modern day drafting and 19th century impressment, press gangs, etc, while the article you referred me to says that Napoleon's army was 2/3 French with the remainder conscripted from countries allied with France who shared a common interest/enemy. He certainly didn't conscript the British to fight their own country, as if that would ever work. Besides, soldiers on land could easily desert – sailors aboard ships, many of whom were forced to spend more than a year on board, could not -- unless they were phenomenal swimmers. Would you please come to terms with recent discussions, stop deviating from the subject of this section and direct your efforts at specific article improvements? Again, no one has even suggested that we refer to anything as despotic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you please take this argument out of this section? I made this whole new section to have whole new arguments in (see below). -Grible (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Grible – Seems this note should be directed at someone else, as I've maintained that the section was created for a different purpose, not for comparing drafting to impressment, while making the usual reminder about specific article improvements. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Plural You was intended with some humour. -Grible (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? You're trolling at this point. If you want to find any sources indicating the British were trying to expand in the North-West or indeed anywhere, then please provide. I would also dispute adding the British allies to the North-West Indian War, aside from selling them guns the British forces did nothing there, and I'm not going to count 100 or so Empire Loyalists getting involved at Fallen Timbers as a full scale British Intervention. Although adding mention of the British dragging their feet withdrawing from forts is fair enough, and I was going to mention Detroit as it's important for the article, I'm however not comfortable with the current wording, which implies that British forces were actively fighting the Americans, which is not true in the NWI or the raiding afterwards. -Grible (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "The British did nothing"? The British maintained a series of Forts along the Maumee River in violation of the Treaty of Paris, and were routinely supplying and aiding the Indian tribes for the sole purpose of keeping the Americans out. Sounds like an alliance to me. Both the Americans and the British were competing for the same area. Yet this is referred to as "expansionism" when it comes to the Americans, but not for the British? Every time the British introduced one of their colonies to an area, including Canada, they were expanding the British empire. The British were indeed actively fighting the Americans, if not directly, indirectly, by aiding the Indians. We can't write this idea off by referring to the relatively small number of men involved. Indeed the disputed areas were later part of a major war, the subject of this article. Also, please keep the accusations under control. "Trolling" involves an active attempt to disrupt. Thanks again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like legitimate trade to me :-) OK, concreate changes - I suggest swapping "Allies" to "Supporters" or "Sponsors" in this sentence? - "having previously fought the Indians and their British allies in the Northwest Indian War". That will remove the implication that there are British soldiers raiding American homesteads. The forts were being held onto as leverage for American actions elsewhere - but I think that's out of scope and so I'm happy enough with the current mention of them if you are, although I think I will name Detroit, since it is important. Canada had been around for a while, the US was actively expanding, the friction was part of the causes. -Grible (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Substantially re-wrote this NW para, borrowing from the section below. Tried to clarify the order of things and the long running nature of the British supported Indian raids, name checked Detroit. -Grible (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Separate point. Nobody picked up on my comment about the name checking Historians, and after thinking about it I want to move those paragraphs out of the "American Expansion" bit and create a "Disputed Causes" (or something like that) section using that information and the brief para at the top of the causes section. It would feel more comfortable - since at the moment the "it was impressment vs expansion" stuff is all in the Expansion section which seems silly. -Grible (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually Gwill did comment, but I think you missed my point, which was why are these para's constructed as "Historian Bob said blaaa" rather than just "Blaaa{cite}" - but I have kind of answered myself with the above. - Grible (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've already maintained, we can refer to historian's assessments, but should do so only when it comes to characterizations of people and events, esp when they reflect the sentiments of either the Americans or British. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So if I move the Historian Opinion sections out and build a new section around the debate among historians? Leaving the actual historical quotes and cited stuff to explain the case for the expansionism side as we have above for impressment - you're ok with that? -Grible (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did this -Grible (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

New thing - The South. In couple of places, including the Lede, the Creek War is mentioned, and there is a single line in the Expansion section currently about the South West. I would like to try and add a paragraph just quickly outlining pre-war moves, something like: "In the South there was a dispute about the status of the area known as West Florida which the US claimed as part of the Louisiana Purchase, and Spain did not acknowledge that France had the right to sell. The US had occupied and annexed the area in 1810 after a short lived Republic of West Florida had been declared. Further American encroachments into officially Spanish territory at Mobile and the lands of the Creek Indians would result in a split within the Indian nation which came to a head during the War of 1812 as the Creek War." If you think it needs more or less plz say, it sort of links to Jackson (in 1814) and post war (First Seminole War) and I think there ought to be something in this "causes" section to lay the groundwork for the Southern Theatre further down. -Grible (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Feel free to, but it could fill a book on its own merits. Broken down to a few sentences might not be that easy. Part of the tribe was assimilating, part of it wasn't. The tension started a civil war between the people. They pissed off the Cherokee so badly they joined Jackson if that tells you anything. That war wasn't totally over for another few decades.Tirronan (talk)


 * Yes, Yes it really could. I've tried for a summary at the end of the American Expansion section, it's not our war, but it so completely overlaps that it kind of needs some sort of mention. -Grible (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Completing Sources - technical questions only, not for arguing.
A kind soul (Jonesey95) has gone through and flagged a whole lot of refs that don't tie to sources in the (absurdly large) repository of sources. I've started at the top and fixed a couple in the Lede, by substituting Hickey 1989 - which I could read - for 2012, which I could not, although the paragraph quoted was substantially the same. I don't really like that as I feel we should be using the most up-to-date edition, but, it's what I have. I will probably continue to work down clearing Jonesey's tags when I have spare time - partly cos I feel guilty about Gwill's "much reading" point above, but if anyone else is interested, do, please, help - especially if you own or have access to the books in question! If I could politely ask that we keep this section clean, that'd be grand. -Grible (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know what "Tucker 2011" was intended to be? There is a Tucker (Sam) who writes and edits a bunch of naval history, but he doesn't seem to have done anything in 2011 that's relevant. There is a Tucker involved in a 1812 book (Concise History), but it's old, and too short for the page given in the cite. It's not the end of the world as it's the 6th cite for a statement, but it would still be nice to keep if we can locate the intended book. {Grible}
 * Most often a reprint is an exact duplicate, page for page, of the original publication. Unless a reprint is different in its content, there is really no issue if we refer to the original, esp when a citation is linked to that particular publication in the Bibliography. As for 's edits, I'm not exactly clear what the dates i.e. are all about. There are several. These things should have been explained here in Talk. Unless the inclusion of these repetitive tags can be substantiated they need to be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * re:reprints, I agree - but Hickey 1989 and 2012 are not reprints, it's a new book, although largely based on the old, a "revised edition" if you like, so I think I'd prefer the newer in this case - but it didn't matter for those cites since the quote being cited was given in the footnote and it was mostly the same as the one in the older book, just slightly different wording.
 * The tags they (Jonesey95) left are asking "does the cite Hickey 2012 refer to the book or the article both published in 2012 and differenced by the letter suffix in the sources." I don't have access to copies of either:
 * Hickey, Donald R. (2012z). The War of 1812, A Short History. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-09447-7.
 * Hickey, Donald R. (November 2012n). "Small War, Big Consequences: Why 1812 Still Matters"
 * in order to check which the cite "Hickey 2012" is referring to, I would imagine it's almost always the book, does anyone else have one or other to hand? -Grible (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The following quote is in two of Donald Hickey's books both published in 2012 by the University of Illinois Press. In The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition it is on page 153. In The War of 1812: A Short History, Bicentennial Edition it is on pages 54 and 55.
 * "The British blockade had a crushing effect on American foreign trade. 'Commerce is becoming very slack,' reported a resident of Baltimore in the spring of 1813: 'no arrivals from abroad, & nothing going to sea but sharp [that is fast] vessels.' By the end of the year, the sea lanes had become so dangerous that merchants wishing to sell goods had to shell out 50 percent of the value of the ship and cargo."
 * Dwalrus (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the quote as given in the original cite - the one I replaced with a cite to the 1989 book along with the slight re-wording of the quote you'll see in footnote to [14] referring to the closing down of trade in the lede. - It could be changed back if you like, but I think it's fine either way. More importantly - you have the short history - which appears to have been used in a bunch of citations through the article. Is it within your patience to go through and check the citations (ie the majority of the ones flagged with "full citation needed" by Jonesey95) are intended to be to that book and if so add the "z" and clear the tag? -Grible (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't do editing anymore. However, in this case I added Hickey's 2012 book The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition to the bibliography. Hickey's short history on the war isn't needed. The problem originated from the fact that Hickey's 2012 bicentennial big book was referenced but not actually in the bibliography. Mr. Jonesey95 checked the bibliography and mistakenly thought the reference was to one of the other Hickey items listed for 2012. All you have to do now is remove the tags. Dwalrus (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tags related to Hickey 2012. That man was busy in 2012 - but I guess, gotta cash in on the bi-centenary if it's your field! This leaves "Tucker 2011" as a mystery. -Grible (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

British support for Tecumseh
War of 1812 says Britain provided Tecumseh's Confederacy with arms and ammunition.[Hitsman, J. Mackay (1965). The Incredible War of 1812, University of Toronto Press.] Is there any evidence the British actually did that? TFD (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Are we to assume that the arms and ammunition, etc, given to the Indian tribes allied under Tecumseh, and his brother, "the prophet", were forged by Tecumseh in, uh, 'one of his many foundries and factories'?  Or perhaps Tecumseh engaged the Americans with bows and arrows. (!) It might make things easier if you told us why you would doubt such an obvious advent, that the British supplied the allied Indian tribes before and during the war.  Meanwhile, there are numerous sources that cover this. Aside from our Bibliography, which sort of resembles a phone directory at this point, here are some additional ones that are dedicated to the subject for your perusal:
 * Smelser, March 1969, Tecumseh, Harrison, and The War of 1812, Indiana Magazine of History; Indiana University Press, Vol. 65, No.1, pages=25-44
 * Sugden, Autumn 1986. Early Pan-Indianism; Tecumseh's Tour of the Indian Country, 1811-1812 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Tecumseh's Travels Revisited" does not say that Britain provided Tecumseh's Confederacy with arms and ammunition. Please don't provide me with sources you claim to support your opinion when they don't. Do you have any sources that provide any evidence for your claim? Please read the sources before providing them because it wastes my time reading sources that don't support your claims. Your theory that Tecumseh must have received his arms and ammunition from the British is original research. Did the U.S. have some sort of restrictions on gun sales in the early 19th century that have now been repealed? TFD (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Tecumseh's Travels Revisited" does not say that Britain provided Tecumseh's Confederacy with arms and ammunition. Please don't provide me with sources you claim to support your opinion when they don't. Do you have any sources that provide any evidence for your claim? Please read the sources before providing them because it wastes my time reading sources that don't support your claims. Your theory that Tecumseh must have received his arms and ammunition from the British is original research. Did the U.S. have some sort of restrictions on gun sales in the early 19th century that have now been repealed? TFD (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There is ample evidence. The British signed over the Northwest Territory and had no intention of honoring it. Given the lack of manpower, the Indian Nations made for cheap allies. I've yet to see a book I believed that refuted it. A few try to soft-peddle it as trade goods. There isn't a whole lot of doubt that as long as the Empire was willing to trade guns, they secured the Nations as allies.Tirronan (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, what source(s) have you read that says the British didn't help the Indians? What prompted this question? You were asked why you have any doubts in that regard. All you've given us, typically, is a claim that one of the sources I took the trouble of providing you didn't say, verbatim, that the British supplied the Indians, while saying clear of the idea that the Indians fought the Americans with bows and arrows. If not, where did the Indians obtain arms and ammunition? Where?? Your question about whether the British supplied the Indians comes off completely naive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was reading several accounts of Tecumseh and they didn't mention the British arming him or other Indians until the War of 1812. They said that British-Indian relations were strained from the signing of the Jay's Treaty as the British would not support the Indians in their conflict with the U.S. I was interested in knowing specifically when and where the arms were delivered and what type they were. But even in sources that said the British supplied the Indians with weapons, the details were vague and ultimately sourced to Madison and his allies. TFD (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Let remain civilTirronan (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources :
TFD, at this point you should know that the British, before and during the war, routinely supplied the Indians with arms and other supplies for the express purpose of helping them fight, or keeping in check, the Americans. Tecumseh was instrumental in this effort and traveled far and wide in his dealings with the British. British assistance to the Indians was going on some years before the war, beginning with Henry Hamilton. This practice continued into the War of 1812 and was a big part of the reasons why Madison finally declared war.


 * "At Detroit Lieutenant-Governor Henry Hamilton handed out ammunition and advised the Indians to unit beneath the British flag.", Sugden, 2013, p.30


 * "the followers of the Prophet had received a supply of powder and ball from the English agents, was generally admitted. They refused to buy ammunition from our traders, alleging that they were plentifully supplied from a quarter where it cost them nothing.", Drake, 1852, p.113


 * "In November, shortly before Tecumseh's reappearance, a Potawatomi called Latourt, or the White Pidgeon, left Indiana Territory and passed through the villages on the River to canvass the Sacs, Foxes and Sioux with, it was said, a wampum from Tenskwatawa and an invitation from the British to visit for arms and ammunition. Brothers, [the White Pidgeon" - Sugden,  1986, p.296


 * "After the battle at Tippecanoe [1811] British military men thought it wise to cultivate the Indians. They suggested rescinding orders to Indian agents to be neutral and recommended that they issue ammunition as well as food."-- Smelser, 2000, p.39
 * "Detroit, a place of only seven hundred people, had to be held if the British at Fort Maiden were to be prevented from supplying the Indians."-- Smelser, 2000, p.39


 * "the Indians at Tippecanoe had refused to buy ammunition off the traders, saying that they had plenty and could get plenty more without paying for it;." -- Barce, 1917, p.73


 * "The British were inciting the Indians! Really - the Brits were giving the Native Americans in Canada and the West weapons and telling them to attack Americans who had settled in the western lands!


 * In the years before the war and many in the United States blamed Great Britain and its colonies for helping to arm the Native Americans. Indeed, for British North America, maintaining positive relationships with Native Americans in the porous borderlands was a sensible means of guarding against incursions by the much more populous United States. Indiana University, Essay, 2012


 * The fact that Watts had brought supplies from Pensacloa, powder, lead, and ammunition spole more loudly than his letter. Watts related how he had seen warehouses of goods, all intended for the Indians. -- Sugden, 2013, p.71

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Craig believed that Britain’s new generosity, in increasing the issue of supplies, including arms and ammunition, and the difficulties the tribes were having with the United States, would eventually push the Indians toward the King, but special efforts should be made to win over influential chiefs." -- Sugden, 2013, p.165
 * "Although this confederacy had the support of the British, it collapsed when Tecumseh was killed in the Battle of the Thames in 1813." -- Hickey, 1989, p.303


 * Your first source says that Henry Hamilton (colonial administrator) provided weapons to Indians during the U.S. revolutionary war. Indeed, Britain did supply their Indian allies with weapons during the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. They may even have supplied weapons to Indians before the signing of the Jay Treaty 0f 1794. A number of your other sources are about British supplying Indians during the War of 1812. Smelser merely says that the Americans wanted to hold Detroit during the War of 1812 in order to prevent the British from supplying weapons to the Indians. The question is whether Britain armed the Indians in the eighteen or so years preceding the outbreak of the War of 1812. TFD (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As you quoted above, Smelser wrote, "[British military men] suggested rescinding orders to Indian agents to be neutral and recommended that they issue ammunition as well as food." Smelser also wrote, "Before Tippecanoe the British senior officers in Canada had discouraged Indian hostility towards the United States." IOW the British did not supply the Indians with arms or ammunition until the U.S. declared war. TFD (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved with this one :-), however I copy edited and moved around some stuff in this section, removed some repetition and merged in some stand alone comments to make a better narrative. I hope this doesn't add fuel to this particular fire. -Grible (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, Events at Tippecanoe alone have the British supplying the Indians before the war, that the Indians refused to buy from the traders because they were getting them for nothing:  Once again, "the Indians at Tippecanoe had refused to buy ammunition of the traders, saying that they had plenty and could get plenty more without paying for it; that Matthew Elliott, the British agent at Maiden, was busy with plot and intrigue against the United States. Our article already states that, "The British saw Tecumseh's Confederacy as a valuable new ally and a buffer between their Canadian colonies and the United States, so they provided them with arms and ammunition. Tecumseh's Confederacy's raids hindered American expansion into rich farmlands in the Northwest Territory. These increased attacks on American settlers further aggravated tensions between Britain and the United States. Raiding grew more common in 1810 and 1811. Westerners in the United States Congress found the raids intolerable and wanted them permanently ended. Additionally, Britain and her Indian allies had a long tradition of alliances against the United States, going back to the American Revolutionary War. The British, at one point, just before Tippecanoe, indeed discouraged hostility between the Americans and the Indians, but that did not last long, and your attempt to stretch this into the idea that the British never supplied the Indians before the war is simply too incompetent to comment on any further.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Your source doesn't say that the Indians received ammunition from the British but that they told American traders they did. In any case a book written by an amateur historian who died in 1841 isn't a reliable source. We don't know what sources the author used or the degree of fact-checking.
 * Per your last point, are you saying that the British began supplying the Indians with arms before or after Tippecanoe (which was Nov. 7, 2011)? Smelson says that British military officers recommended that British policy toward the Indians change from neutrality to provision of arms and ammunition after Tippecanoe. But there is no evidence that the recommendation was relayed to Whitehall, let alone that it was approved and acted on before the commencement of the war. TFD (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Practically speaking, what difference does it make whether or not the policy was officially approved in Whitehall? As long as British/Canadians were supplying Northwest tribes with arms the British government would quite naturally be blamed. Incidentally, from Thomas A. Bailey's A Diplomatic History of the American People, Eighth Edition, page 136:
 * About a thousand advancing American troops, led by by General William Henry Harrison, clashed with the Indians at Tippecanoe, on November 7, 1811, near the Wabash river in present Indiana. The so-called white victory was hardly decisive, but the red attackers were beaten off, leaving behind newly marked British arms.'' Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The relevance of approval is that military and civil servants act on the instructions of their superiors not on their own initiative. Today, for example, military officials are advising the U.S. not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. But the ultimate decision is up to the administration. It's unlikely that colonial officers would commit Great Britain to a war against the U.S. without instructions from their superiors, especially since the official position was neutrality. They could face execution. In any case, Smelson doesn't say that the officers broke neutrality, just that they advised the government to do so. Thanks for the source, I will look into it. TFD (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer a more recent book that was about the War of 1812 and used footnotes, particularly when rebutting sourced claims in modern scholarship, in this case that the British pursued a policy of neutrality before Tippecanoe. (Bailey's book was written in 1939, although it has been revised and reissued many times.) The information appears to come from a footnote 1 in "Harrison to Secretary of War" (Vincennes 18th Nov. 1811.) It says, "[Colonel Frederick Geiger] brought a new British musket home with him from the battle.]" But the source used (Alfred Pirtle,The Battle of Tippecanoe (1897), p. 17), doesn't mention the musket. The note from Harrison is taken from the collection of his works published in 1922 by the Indiana Historical Commission. Obviously Harrison was unaware of the footnoted information. But a few sources mistakenly state that Harrison claimed to see many newly minted British muskets. TFD (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodtablemanners, thanks for yet another example where the Indians were in possession of firearms between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. This is consistent with the idea that they didn't have the means to manufacture them themselves and were routinely getting support from the British in their attempts to oppose the Americans. As our article generically indicates, British assistance to the Indians began immediately following the Revolution, continued during the Northwest Indian War, all the way up to and into the Ear of 1812. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, all you're really giving us is conjecture, starting with your claim about an "amateur" historian of "1841" (It's 1852 actually). Yes, the Indians turned down arms offers from the traders claiming they got them for nothing, yet you're willing to assume they still had no other access to guns and ammunition, and seem willing to assume also that the only assistance the Indians received from the British were pep talks. Again, our article says "Raiding grew more common in 1810 and 1811. Westerners in the United States Congress found the raids intolerable and wanted them permanently ended." While we don't mention arms assistance, verbatim, it would be flagrantly naive to assume that the British didn't offer them arms and ammunition to effectively challenge the Americans. The British obviously had every reason to provide them with firearms, starting immediately after the revolutionary War, per governor Hamilton and others. Meanwhile, you were the one who started the issue of whether there was "evidence" of arms dealings between the British and the Indians, yet thus far all you've done is scoff at numerous sources that indicate otherwise, while you've not offered one source to support your notion that the British "never" gave the Indians weapons before the War of 1812. Again, our article says "Britain and her Indian allies had a long tradition of alliances against the United States, going back to the American Revolutionary War." That's fine by me, as any intelligent reader will know that this included supplies from the British. If you could have provided a source that even hints at the idea that the British never provided arms to the Indians between Hamilton's aid and Tippecanoe it seems you would have done so by now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Drake died in 1841, not 1852. People who have no academic qualifications or experience, have no academic publications and work in other fields are by definition amateurs. (See Merriam-Webster's definition of amateur: "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession.") So the fact that no reliable sources say the British armed Tecumseh in the years leading up to the War of 1812 and in fact say they remained neutral, means that we should reword the sentence so that it reads as a claim by the U.S. government, not an accepted fact. TFD (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Drake's book was published in 1852, and it remains your opinion that his work is less than reliable, esp since he was a newspaper editor of a prominent newspaper, well adept at assembling facts and writing, and since he cites numerous primary and other sources. You will need to do more than sling mud at the messenger, typically, to impeach this source. The British gave aid to the Indians since the American Revolution, during the Northwest Indian War and up to and into the War of 1812 – Indians who were in possession of firearms the entire duration. This involves much more than Tecsumseh, who ultimately had close ties to the British, so the article should remain as is unless you can produce something concrete that does more than cast highly opinionated aspersions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I know I said I wouldn't - but actually the couple of times guns and ammo are mentioned in the Tecsumesh section the sentences aren't actually cited, might be worth adding those refs you're (Gwill) talking about above. Currently there are some hanging statements:

The Indians maintained this resistance with supplies and encouragement from the British. from the top of the American Expansion section so they provided them with arms and ammunition. in the opening of the Tecsumesh section. These are both sentences I probably wrote, or at least moved to their current place/edited in, and I think they are on balance correct, but we should have cites for them, it's a little unfair on TFD to ask him to prove a negative, (even if I think he's wrong). Also are we grouping "trading with the Indians" and "giving out guns to the Indians" as the same thing, should we split the two? Is there evidence one way or the other? My personal opinion is the article is probably fine - but should gain a cite or two - but the lines are likely blurry. Fur traders, Indian Agents and British Army liaisons (to use a modern term) all probably at different times and in different ways supplied the various different Indians to resist the encroachment into their lands, I imagine the British government would like to claim it was all "independent/private fur traders" who gave out muskets for pelts, the Americans on the other hand (possibly fairly) assumed any British built muskets must have been issued to the Indians by the authorities, along with a 'hint' to go and use them on the settlers. As far as I know the British were issuing various patterns of Brown Bess for over a hundred years, so it's not impossible the Indians got them during the earlier conflicts, but it feels more likely to me that there was an ongoing trade/gifting though out. As always it was probably all things at different times and places. Please not shout at Grible -Grible (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * British aid to the Indians, along with their obvious motives, has been and is well established, since the Revolution on forward. If anyone is going to challenge that they need to do more than cast doubt, which is pretty much all that has been put on the table in that regard, so asking for sources to substantiate is, imo, not at all unfair, all things considered. Many cites need page numbers. I've been chipping away at it. It often requires a lot of reading, so the process is slow. I'll look into matters here to secure the best sources, hoping others will also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)



Sources, continued

 * By I786 hostilities were breaking out on the Northwest frontier, and the Indians were ready to fight to -prevent American settlement northwest of the Ohio. The Shawnee almost immediately disavowed Fort Finney, and the Mohawk Joseph Brant was, with British assistance, striving to unite the Northwestern tribes.


 * 1795: they (the British) sought to keep a strong hold upon the Indian tribes of the old north-western territory as well as all others that they could reach or control. In carrying this policy into effect they made Maiden their great trading post, and from it made to the Indians annually presents of arms and ammunition...


 * "On the contrary, as the probabilities of war between the two countries, increased, and became more apparent, they redoubled their active exertions to excite the Indians to the greatest degree of ferocity against us. rhey enlarged and greatly added to the variety and value of their usual presents, furnished them abundantly with arms and ammunition from Maiden, and took every means calculated to cement their bonds of friendship with them."


 * When hostilities between the British Government and the United States became threatening and the influence of British agents had become so great that the Indians commenced assembling in large bodies, as we have seen in 1811, Tecumseh's prospects brightened.


 * Tecumseh to Proctor: Father, you have got the arms and ammunition which our Great Father sent to his red children.
 * Sources



-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert but this National Park Service article makes sense to me: . "Neutrality", in practice, has meant all kinds of VERY diverse things throughout history. In the article I've referenced here the author, Carl Benn, basically states that although the British government in Whitehall was not eager for war with the US while it was fighting Napoleon, the long-standing practice of providing arms to Northwest territory tribes continued to be carried on by both freelance traders and British government agents. Goodtablemanners (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * GTM, thanks for the input. Yes, at one point, Britain cautioned against hostilities just before Tippecanoe but was not so naive that they didn't prepare for it. Benn's article, and his book, listed in our Bibliography, maintain what should be obvious. The idea of the British helping the Indians, while providing them no firearms to fight an enemy so armed, would be sort of ridiculous. Such a venture doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny and would beg the question, among others -- that if Britain sought the help of the Indians, why wouldn't they provide them with firearms? -- Gwillhickers'' (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the fact that Britain allied with Indians during the revolutionary war is not evidence that they did so in the decades before the War of 1812. Do you think that the UK is behind today's Standing Rock demonstrations?
 * Since you presented Hatch's book as a source, you are aware that he was an officer for General Hull and later participated in the Sand Creek massacre in which mostly women and children were killed. Otherwise little is known about him. Why do you consider his works more reliable than 21st century scholarship?
 * TFD (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! In His Majesty's Indian Allies: British Indian Policy in the Defence of Canada (Toronto: Dundurn, 1992), Robert S. Allen shows that the British government ceased supplying the tribes of the Old Northwest with arms after the end of the Northwest Indian War in 1795 (see pages 91 - 93), and did not resume doing so until after the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811. Indeed, the British government issued orders to fur traders to deny gunpowder to Tecumseh and his followers in 1810 (page 115). The American assumption that the British must be organizing and arming the tribes of the Old Northwest basically stemmed from the bigoted assumption that they were incapable of uniting to resist American land theft and ethnic cleansing on their own - it was also a convenient means of justifying an attack on Canada for the War Hawks (see Allen, page 111). I cannot believe that Wikipedia users are citing books from the 1870s as proof that the British armed the tribes of the Old Northwest in the decade before the War of 1812 - none of the relevant archival material (which Allen writes from) was available at that point in time. On historical questions like this, you need to look at modern specialist literature, not National Park Service websites!EnoughApologetics (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The National Park Service article was written by a present-day Canadian specialist on the subject. Once again, an overseas government's official policy is often very different than the reality four or five thousand miles away. Why would the British government have issued specific orders for traders to deny the Northwest Territory Indians gunpowder? Quite possibly because of its knowledge that, despite official British neutrality, they had still been getting such from British/Canadian sources. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No - Allen refers to the British administration in the Canadas, not to the British government in London. While it is, of course, true that fur traders from the Canadas sold gunpowder to the tribes of the Old Northwest throughout the first decade of the 19th century, this does not represent an official policy of arming them to attack the United States. The tribes of the Old Northwest needed gunpowder to hunt the game which constituted their main source of protein. Without such supplies, which the U. S. government refused to regularly sell, they would starve. It's hardly surprising that the fur traders, many of whom had family ties to the tribes of the Old Northwest, declined to collaborate in the American government's policy of starving them into submission!
 * With regard to the modern historians who are cited in this section of the "talk page" as proof for the claim that the British were arming the tribes of the Northwest between the Northwest Indian War of the 1790s and the War of 1812. Nowhere in Horsman's 1961 article does he make this claim: the sentence cited above from that article refers to 1786, prior to the Northwest Indian War. On Sugden's Tecumseh: A Life: the sentence from page 30 refers to the American Revolutionary War (1777), while the sentence from page 71 refers to events in 1792. The sentence from Hickey refers to British support for Tecumseh after the beginning of the War of 1812. This is either a deliberately misleading use of these sources or a profoundly alarming inattention to chronology. EnoughApologetics (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

TFD, trying to impeach a source because of its date of publication or because its author may have participated in the Sand Creek massacre doesn't carry. (There's no mention of Hull in that article.) No one said Hatch's words are "more reliable" so kindly let's not resort to such straw men. If you are going to impeach a source you should refute its contents, something you haven't done, once again. Was there something specific in Hatch's work you have issues with? I well appreciate the modern scholarship, and as you seem to forget, I refer to it often, but in many cases they only duplicate what the older sources are saying in terms of established facts and too often only offer new opinion. As I've always maintained, any given source should be evaluated on a per source basis, not on a superficial premise on the date of publication. Also, you should learn that the Sand Creek massacre did not occur in a vacuum and was  in response to other events like the Hungate massacre. Before that the Lakota Sioux and the Cheyenne were raiding in the Colorado Eastern plains where they attacked American Ranches and also killed women and children, livestock and burnt crops with the racist and xenophobic objective of driving white people away, just for the record, so let's leave what resembles one-sided college activism out of the discussion from here on and concentrate on specific article improvements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

EnoughApologetics, Welcome to Wikipedia. Re: Some of your statements (all quotes in green):

"Allen refers to the British administration in the Canadas, not to the British government in London''

You seem to be suggesting that the British government in Canada had nothing to do with that in London, with the implication that they were two different entities with completely different objectives.

"the claim that the British were arming the tribes of the Northwest between the Northwest Indian War of the 1790s and the War of 1812. Nowhere in Horsman's 1961 article does he make this claim: the sentence cited above from that article refers to 1786, prior to the Northwest Indian War. "

Horsman, p. 35 maintains that "In the years from I783 to 18I2 the one consistent element in American Indian policy in the Old Northwest was the desire to acquire the land between the Ohio and the Mississippi. It would be naive to assume that the British were unaware of this. The British had long since established alliances with the Indian tribes immediately following the Revolution for the sole purpose of opposing American expansion, yet you seem to be assuming that they did nothing in terms of maintaining alliances and helping the Indians in the years leading up to 1812.  Horsman and other sources were not cited to verify British assistance for any one time period, but only to demonstrate that they were in alliance with the Indians all along, and though they may not have acted in such an official capacity at all times, it's rather clear that their objectives were always the same in terms of resisting the American interest in the Northwest and Canada. Indeed, this beast reared its ugly head plainly after Tippecanoe in the months leading up to the War of 1812. The not so subtle inference that the American's had no cause to resort to war over British support for and incitement of the Indians still remains unfounded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As many sources have pointed out, between the signing of Jay's Treaty of 1794 and outbreak of the War of 1812, the British in Canada had two objectives: to rebuild their relationship with Indians and to maintain British neutrality regarding the Americans. Hence they provided provisions to Indians but refused to arm them for conflict with the U.S. Bear in mind that the main economic activity of the British in the territories outside the Canadas was trade with the Indians and this was agreed to by the U.S. in Jay's Treaty. The right to enter the U.S. without restriction is still held by Canadian Indians. Since British records are now available, we don't have to rely on the misinformed propaganda of the Democrat Party. TFD (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Propaganda" is a two-way street, so I'll overlook your political slur. Which "many sources" are you referring to? The fact that the retreating Indians after the Battle of Tippecanoe left behind newly marked British firearms tells us quite a different story. As you must know, history is filled with examples where a government says one thing while practicing another. Do you think in their efforts to maintain or rebuild their relationship with the Indians in the years before Tippecanoe that the British didn't bother to provided them with more than just food and clothing, items they needed most?
 * "About a thousand advancing American troops, led by by General William Henry Harrison, clashed with the Indians at Tippecanoe, on November 7, 1811, near the Wabash river in present Indiana. The so-called white victory was hardly decisive, but the red attackers were beaten off, leaving behind newly marked British arms."
 * "the Indians at Tippecanoe had refused to buy ammunition off the traders, saying that they had plenty and could get plenty more without paying for it;."  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No it's not a slur to refer to speeches by Democrats in the 1800s as propaganda. And it's not a two way street. We should use expert sources whose writers have the expertise to sift through original sources and figure out what actually happened.
 * When sources conflict, it is best to use modern academic sources rather than oldetr sources. Another approach worth taking is to see whether these sources got their information. If we can find the original source, then we can see if it was correctly reported or if it is credible. In this case, none of your sources cite where they got this information and I can find no mention of it in original sources. You would have thought that Harrison would have mentioned it. The oldest mention I can find is from the Congressional Record for Feb. 17, 1814 (p.212): "There, with the language of peace in their mouths, like their employers, they attacked our force, and, being defeated, they left behind them British arms, British scalping knives and tomahawks, and British ornaments." (Democrat Congressman John George Jackson.) Jackson btw was also present at the Sand Creek massacre. Maybe Jackson made it up or got it from a dubious source. That could explain why modern reliable sources ignore the story.
 * As for your second source, someone said that someone said that someone said isn't good evidence, and probably explains why you have to back 100 years to find it. It doesn't make sense anyway that Americans were willing to provide weapons to the Indians but declared war on the British for doing the same thing.
 * TFD (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Smelser states: "The Indians were a Stone Age people who depended for good weapons almost entirely on the Long Knives [Americans traders] or the  Redcoats. The rivalry of Britain and the United States made these dependent  people even more dependent. Long Knives supplied whisky, salt, and tools.  Redcoats supplied rum, beef, and muskets." [p 30]. On page 39: "Tecumseh still had nearly a thousand warriors, drawn from twelve tribes,  but they were short of weapons and food. They had received little powder  and not an ounce of lead from the British in the first half of 1812. " Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

TFD your glossing over may things here:
 * No it's not a slur to refer to speeches by Democrats in the 1800s as propaganda. Not by itself, however, here is the context of your original contention:Since British records are now available, we don't have to rely on the misinformed propaganda of the Democrat Party which more than implies that British records in of themselves are automatically accurate, while Democrat accounts are not.


 * When sources conflict, it is best to use modern academic sources rather than oldetr sources. This goes on yet another assumption that modern sources never conflict, or that they always trump older sources simply because they were published at a late date.


 * As for your second source, someone said that someone said that someone said isn't good evidence, and probably explains why you have to back 100 years to find it. Barce only notes that the Indians turned down offers of firearms from the Americans because they were getting them from the British, for nothing. Your retort that "someone said that someone said that someone said" is something of a distortion and overlooks the idea that almost all historical accounts by authors who were not present involve what other people have said, or have written. You've been bending over backwards to discredit sources that don't suit your pov, but have yet to give us anything but conjecture in these typical attempts to do so.


 * It doesn't make sense anyway that Americans were willing to provide weapons to the Indians but declared war on the British for doing the same thing. You're right, it doesn't make sense that the Americans provided the Indians with firearms when they were by and large opposed to them. What source says that the American government was providing them firearms in the same capacity that the British were, or in any capacity, in the few years prior to the war? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One major new book that deserves close attention here is Carl Benn, ed. A Mohawk Memoir from the War of 1812: John Norton-Teyoninhokarawen (U of Toronto Press, 2019). It's the autobiography of a bilingual Indian leader not as famous as Tecumseh but quite important. He worked closely with Isaac Brock to ally the Iroquois in Ontario with the Crown. Benn says that Brock did provide arms and ammunition (but Brock had very little cash to give). " Muskets and rifles were the primary weapons of First Nations warriors" and were supplied by British traders. (p. 107). Ch 1 (to p 96) covers prewar maneuvres. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Official records are more accurate than political speeches. Note that in legal cases, whether prosecutions for insider trading, class actions against tobacco companies or prosecutions of former Communist officials, prosecutors seek internal records as evidence rather than official statements made at the time. British quartermasters for example kept records of weapons, gunpowder and lead received from Britain and of its disposal. This is known as a paper trail. Records kept by the quartermaster at Malden of material supplied to Indians is more accurate than what a politician said based on third hand knowledge. Fortunately we don't have to compare these sources ourselves, but leave that to experts. TFD (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources, continued ...

 * TFD, where are you getting "political speech" from? In any event, there is no guarantee that Official records are more accurate than political speeches -- either can be flawed or less than accurate. If these are presented by reliable sources they lend weight to the idea that the Indians overall were supplied by the British over and again, and in one capacity or another. The attempt to diminish this effort, and the threat of many thousands of armed Indians, as something that was merely in the minds of the Americans is academically disappointing and ignores too many sources to count at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was describing Democrat Congressman John George Jackson's speech as a political speech. What would you prefer I call it? And yes official records may be flawed or inaccurate, which is why we leave it to historians to assess them. But this reminds me of the arguments used in the Birther controversy where conspiracy theorists argued that the state record of Obama's birth could be fake and therefore we should believe some distant relative who said he was born in Kenya. TFD (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Carl Benn's area of expertise, evidently, is in Indian relationships with the British and Americans. Below is another book written by Benn, 1998.  Among other things the John Norton story serves to exemplify the more than passing relationship between the British and the Indians. Below is an excerpt from a journal article by Jeffery Glover, 2016, that sheds some light on this advent. Norton's journal has also been published, (See Norton, 1910, below) but unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it is not viewable on line. Born in Scotland to a Scottish mother and Cherokee father, who had been kidnapped by the British from Keowee (now Oconee County, South Carolina), Norton came to North America as a British soldier and was adopted by the Mohawks, learning their language, laws, and diplomacy, and eventually rising to a leadership position in the tribe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)




 * So what did Benn say about the issue? TFD (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Tippecanoe
After all the talk about Tippecanoe some might find it odd that this battle is not mentioned once in the article here, not even in See also. The Battle of Tippecanoe occurred more than a half year before war was declared and the increased British support for the Indians which followed was one of the advents that led to war, so we should commit at least a good paragraph to this event. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It should certainly be mentioned, but I'm not convinced it needs full paragraph - it has an article all it's own. I suggest inserting something either in the 1st para of American Expansionism - the last line "The ongoing conflict between settlers and Indians in rest of this region was referenced in American political discourse and seen as linked to Canadian affairs since the British traders and officials involved were based there." could be altered to something like: "The ongoing conflict between settlers and Indians in the rest of this region culminated in the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811. This running conflict was referenced in American political discourse and seen as linked to Canadian affairs since the British traders and officials involved were based there." Since it's sort of already discussed and this makes it explicit. Mentioning Harrison's determination to purge the Indians from his territory, and the American belief that the British were arming Tecumseh - he had gone to meet them at the time of Tippecanoe - might also be do-able, but to be honest mention and direct to the main articles for details seems better?
 * Alternatively it could be put into the build up section of British Support for Indians, it's kind of both, Harrison was definitely determined to push the Indians out of their lands so he could replace them with settlers, and the Brits were definitely happy to oppose that by proxy.
 * Add at the end of the 2nd Para "...found the raids intolerable and wanted them permanently ended. This led to the American attack on the Indian headquarters at Prophetstown to try and break up the Confederacy. This pushed Tecumseh further into the British fold, finding ready allies in Canada as the War began." In this case there would need to be mention or linking to the Tecumseh's War article earlier in that paragraph. Or some combination of both? -Grible (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Many of the topics in this article already have their own dedicated article. If we were to reduce the respective coverage to small paragraphs, this article would be reduced to a glorified table of contents to other articles. Tippecanoe was a major event and a significant turning point. One fair sized paragraph is par for main articles like this. Also, I wouldn't sugar-coat the British support for the Indians, whom they armed to the teeth and exploited since the Revolution, as merely support by "proxy". The British armed and incited the Indians to protect their expansionist/colonial efforts in the north from those of the Americans in the south, while racist superstitious Indians simply didn't want much to do with "evil" white people all the way around and wished to go on roaming around and hunting and fighting with each other as they had done for centuries, now of course with all the benefits the white man afforded them. In any case, one or both of us should come up with a proposal paragraph, and from there we can fashion an account that is brief, yet comprehensive, which doesn't force the reader to jump to one or more other articles just to get a good picture of affairs here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting drawn into the fight above about who was arming Indians, and when, and why that's going on above.
 * This article 'should' be a summary article, short paragraphs or a couple of lines covering everything important is enough, sending the reader to the larger articles for anything they want to read in depth.
 * I'll will try and write something for Tippecanoe, but I think you're really over-stating it's particular importance a bit, Harrison burned down the town and scattered the Indians there, but Tecumesh came back, now firmly in the British camp, to get involved in the 1812, it was largely a boost to his (Harrisons) political ambitions more than anything. There's going to be adding to the internal US politics bit about Westerners etc to bring the background of this all in... I'll aim to put a paragraph in the Indian Support bit, and add some context lines in Expansionism and Politics so it's not an orphan. Proposal on talk once I think it through.
 * I'm also not really keen on your tone here regarding the Indians themselves. I'll freely accept British exploitation of the situation, but given this was Indian land and Tecumseh was in the process of building a group of peoples to resist the American invasions and try to assemble a state of his own, and there was wide spread intermingling, trading and diplomacy with the Canadians and other colonies (French and British) for a long time before US independence and with them after I can't characterise them as mere "savages". Even if this was the case - why is it an unreasonable standpoint to want to continue your historic way of life? Yes, the British stood to gain by preserving or creating some sort of "independent" Indian state and definitely used Indian warriors in their (unrelated to the Indians) fights, but the Americans were trying to drive them out and/or kill them, in that situation I think it's fairly reasonable to accept British guns to try and setup your own semi-modern state - even with strings attached - wouldn't take much inciting. And no the British were not nice people either, and they would almost certainly have carried out their own version of "civilising" (-see Australia) eventually, but their attitude here does seem to have been more like their the treatment of (Actual) Indian princely states, nominal independence with British control of trade and foreign policy, at this point. Also it's incredibly disingenuous to describe the Indians as racist, especially compared to the white settlers (and Harrison!), I'd say no-one is covered in glory there so cool that talk.
 * -Grible (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm, not exactly keen about your tone either, since you're making this a bit personal, and the apparent double standard when describing whites v Indians in terms of racism. "especially compared to the white settlers (and Harrison!)"?? I've long since grown weary of various peer pressured academics demonizing white settlers while more than suggesting that Indians were these poor helpless stupid victims who were above harboring any racial and xenophobic feelings, when in reality, more Indians were killed by other Indians than by any other group, by far. Some had the same capacity for ruthlessness and treachery as did some whites. Having said that, sources indicate that Tippecanoe was a significant event that helped paved the way to war, esp since the British, whose many colonial exploits are rarely referred to as "expansionist", had a long history of inciting and arming the Indians. There was a treaty ( Treaty of Fort Wayne) between the Americans and several large Indian tribes which ceded land to the Americans, and Tecumseh was doing all he could, traveling far and wide recruiting various tribes to join in his effort to reverse that agreement, and was ready to punish those Chiefs who sold land to the Americans. This topic should be treated in the same capacity as all the other topics, keeping due weight, etc in mind, leaving the adjectives and POVs like "...in that situation I think it's fairly reasonable to accept British guns...", out of the equation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into a shouting match on a talk page over racism with you, it's not worth it, and the potential for misunderstandings and offence are too high in a text chat. I'll refer you to Jeffersonian Benevolence on the Ground: The Indian Land Cession Treaties of William Henry Harrison - Robert M. Owens, it's on JSTOR which I note you have access to, for background to Harrison and Fort Wayne and why Tecumseh was trying to overturn it. Separately, I'm still not sure why you persist declaring the British to be on an expansionist track pre-1812, the garrisons in Canada are small, the forts were surrendered, the relationships with the natives appear to have been largely in abeyance (I concede may actually have a point about this after all as I read more), the British would seem in fact desperate to maintain the status-quo in the Americas. What expansionist moves do you have in mind when you say this? Americans also sold/gifted guns, supplies and money to the Indians, so much so the British were terrified that the tribes might have sided with the US, Harrison and Tippecanoe put paid to that at least in the NW, which I guess makes it a turning point of sorts, as always context is everything. Write your paragraph, I'm sure we'll continue to debate it. -Grible (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the existing text in the article is already extremely biased toward the American perspective, and that, if anything, we should be adding material to re-balance it toward the Indian perspective! For example, the article currently ignores the raids by American frontiersmen against the tribes of the Old Northwest, which were every bit as brutal as Indian raids and common during the decade before the War of 1812. These raids encouraged the tribes of the Old Northwest to ally with the British. Additionally, the article ignores the essentially fraudulent character of the land cession treaties which Tecumseh and his allies sought to overturn. In the case of the Treaty of St. Louis (1804), for example, American officials got a group of Indian leaders drunk, pressured them into selling the territory of other tribes over which they had no authority, and then denied the Indians the miserly compensation that they had initially been promised. By purchasing land in modern-day Indian and northern Ohio, Harrison was systematically violating the Treaty of Greenville, by which the U.S. government had promised to let the tribes of the Old Northwest retain those territories in perpetuity. On these points, see Carl Benn, "Aboriginal Peoples and their Multiple Wars of 1812", in The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812, ed. Donald R. Hickey and Connie D. Clark (New York: Routledge, 2016), 132 - 152.

The article also places too much weight on Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa's charismatic leadership. The Indians of the Old Northwest allied with the British primarily because the American government wanted to entirely dispossess them, and they (in retrospect, correctly) understood that they would probably not survive as nations unless they halted American expansion. For this reason, many tribes that never accepted Tecumseh's leadership, like the Sauk and Meskwaki in Illinois Territory, allied with the British, and kept fighting after Tecumseh's defeat at the Thames (see Gillum Ferguson, Illinois in the War of 1812, Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2012, 150 - 180) The central reality is that the U.S. wanted to dispossess the Indians of the Old Northwest, not the reverse; it was the essential aggressiveness of American policy that brought on the war. EnoughApologetics (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Grible, please don't attempt to escalate matters. Above you claimed you didn't want to be drawn into a fight, then followed up with a lengthy discussion with some highly biased claims i.e."...it's fairly reasonable to accept British guns...", with no comment that it was also reasonable for the Americans to take issue with such an inciteful and meddlesome practice, and that it's "incredibly disingenuous to describe the Indians as racist, especially compared to the white settlers (and Harrison!)"  (with an exclamation point) while seemingly willing to dismiss such behavior in regards to the Indians. Now you're assuming that there is some sort of "shouting match" going on here. There's no edit war going on and we're simply discussing history here and the behavior of the various parties involved, that both wanted to see each other out of the region for racial and cultural reasons. Unfortunately this is largely characteristic of the history of the entire world. No one wants to even use words like racism and so forth in regards to anyone in the article, at least I don't, and it's not my intention to have the article say that Britain also has a long history of expansionist efforts with their many colonial exploits and their efforts to protect those prospects. All that need be done here, however, is to intimate a few facts leading up to and including Tippecanoe, and as I've already said, we leave out the adjectives and POV's. If anyone still has issues of bias they can throw it out here in Talk and see if anyone other than members of their choir will buy it. That's all. Is this an acceptable proposal for you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You have some very unusual view about the United States, Great Britain and aboriginal people that provoke controversy when you raise them. Perhaps America has a God given right to dominate the continent and their opponents are racist or evil to resist them. But those aren't views that appear in the sources and it's a distraction to get into arguments about them. TFD (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're drawing a false equivalence between the Americans and the Indians of the Old Northwest. The latter didn't really think in terms of race or nationality; instead, kinship was the organizing principle of their societies. They frequently adopted captured Europeans to replace deceased family members precisely because concepts of race didn't figure significantly in their thinking, at least during this period. A good summary of their attitudes toward kinship and ethnicity in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries can be found in Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650 - 1815, Cambridge University Press, 1991, 1 - 94. By contrast, American officials definitely thought in racial terms; the letters that Horsman quotes in "American Indian Policy in the Old Northwest, 1783-1812", The William and Mary Quarterly, which you cited above, display these attitudes well.
 * It's also false to say that both sides wanted "to see each other out of the region for racial and cultural reasons". The Indians of the Old Northwest didn't aspire to drive American settlers back over the Appalachians; they wanted to keep their existing lands, and they wanted the American government to keep the promise not to expand further west that it had made in the Treaty of Greenville. Nor did they necessarily object to Europeans settling in their lands: both French and British fur traders did so in fairly substantial numbers throughout the eighteenth century. The American government, however, insisted on entirely dispossessing them and denying them any cultural or political autonomy, as Horsman makes clear in "American Indian Policy in the Old Northwest". The American government's policy was thus fundamentally aggressive; the Indians' resistance to it was fundamentally defensive (on this point, see Carl Benn, The War of 1812, New York: Routledge, 2005, 10 - 11). We shouldn't mention Tippecanoe without making this history of American duplicity and expansionism clear. EnoughApologetics (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That you are willing to refer to "American duplicity" in the article clearly indicates you seek to insert an acute and less than objective POV into the article. Otoh, I have twice maintained that we should leave POV's and adjectives, which you just resorted to, out of the narrative. The Treaty of Greenville was struck in 1795 and involved Anthony Wayne more so than his subordinate Harrison, while many tribes were split over the prospect, and there too the British were giving aid to the various tribes. Later a treaty was struck at Fort Wayne, between various tribes and the Americans, but Tecumseh was organizing other tribes to challenge it, while his brother, "the prophet", who had a large following, and who referred to white people as "evil", indeed wanted them gone, pushed all the way back into the Atlantic ocean if he could have his way, so let's not carry on and speak about all Indians in such apologetic tones as if they were all above it all. There were also plenty of whites who socially intermingled with Indians, while many others traded with them. Many others were very sympathetic and went through great lengths to have Indians realize that the world all around them was rapidly changing and wanted them to adopt to a farming and ranching way of life so they wouldn't have to remain in a state of arrested development with this need to dominate vast regions of the country side as their private hunting grounds -- so let's not refer to the white settlers as all racists in the politically correct derogatory sense (all peoples harbor some form of racist and cultural bias) while you attempt to paint the Indians as something entirely different.Speaking of Horsman, on p.35 he maintains:
 * "Not only did it thus secure land, it also succeeded in convincing itself that what it was doing was in the best interests of the Indians. What had started out in I783 as naked desire for land had, by i8I2, been transmuted into lofty moral purpose. By I8I2 American leaders were not only trying to convince others, but apparently had also convinced themselves that they were working for the ultimate benefit of the Indian. The manner in which national interest and moral purpose became entangled is a key to the history of nineteenth-century expansion."
 * "The rapidly expanding American population could no more be expected to ignore the rich, sparsely settled lands to the west than could the Indians be expected to yield them without a struggle. The American government could make the process less painful, but it could not solve the basic dilemma." - p.45 Still harboring deep resentment over the Revolution and the loss of their colonies, the British sought to incite and exploit the Indians against the Americans for their own sordid interests, all the way up to 1812.

This section was initiated so we could discuss brief coverage of Tippecanoe, but it soon was drawn into other issues and thus far, at this late date, there has been next to no specific suggestions, other than you wanting to advance the idea of "American duplicity" which simply dismisses many events and causes, including the desire of many tribes to sell parts of their vast land holdings, along with your sweeping and distorted claims about the American government overall. Now we are all clearly getting way away from the idea of specific article improvements, so this discussion, such that it has become, at this point belongs in a box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021
Remove reference to the creation of a Canadian state in the Treaty of Ghent. There is no such term in the Treaty (https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=20&page=transcript) 2607:FEA8:C320:C540:2C:42F9:456:87AC (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. TFD (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)