Talk:War of 1812/Archive 5

US Invasion of Canada
The article doesn't seem to emphasize enough the US decision to invade and annex Canada as the central act of the war.

It at least does mention "The war formally began on June 18, 1812, with a U.S. declaration of war" -- in contrast to the propaganda taught to generations of US schoolchildren that Britain attacked the US.

But US belligerence could be more clearly presented, structurally -- in the cause, and then effect, narration of events.


 * Why should the article emphasize the US decision to invade and annex Canada as the central act of the war? For that matter what qualifies a decision as "the central act of a war"?   Do all wars have a "central act"?  Was the decision of the allies in ww2 to invade Germany the "central act" of that war?


 * US schoolchildren are and were taught that considerable numbers of US citizens were impressed into the Royal Navy for a considerable time prior to the start of the war. They are also taught that the british empire continued to occupy forts in US territory in the west.  Is this the "propaganda" you are referring to?  Or have you actually held that US schoolchildren are taught that the UK attacked the US military before the US attacked the UK's military?


 * Zebulin 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

History doesn't highlight the Allies Invasion of Germany as the "Central act of the war". However, you may have heard reference to a certain Adolf Hitler starting WW2 by invading Poland, As the initiating Act of the war. What do you think could be the parrallel for this in the War of 1812?

US kids seem to be taught that the (1) British were arming Evil Indians, (2) that the US won the war, not Canada, and (3) that the central objective of the war was to stop the British stealing all the American Sailors. In truth, (1) the Indians were being massacred and pushed into Canada by the US, (2) The US failed to achieve their objectives and lost the War, and (3) the central objective was to annex Canadian land, the impressement of Sailors had actually stopped before the war started. 211.28.213.69 09:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Deathlibrarian 09:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we identify the central objective of the war? Nobody in the US government was aware of any change in the status of British policies on impressment and indeed no statement was ever sent to the US that the policy had changed. In such circumstances it is impossible to see that impressment had ended.


 * With respect to aspirations on land in Canada, New englanders were generally opposed to the war IIRC, and it's doubtful southerners would have seen much value to an enlargment of non slaveholding states in the US. When the US government coveted territories the it had a pattern of officially laying a claim to territory or attempting to negotiate it's peaceful transfer from the government in possession of such territories.   Is there any evidence of any such interest in such claims prior to the discussion of war?  It is interesting that Thomas Jefferson is quoted as believing that the conquest of Canada would be merely a matter of marching and yet Jeffereson chose *not* to seek such an invasion.  If americans were preoccupied with such a conquest why didn't a president who saw such an action as ludicrously easy see fit to pursue it?


 * Zebulin 04:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Who won the War of 1812 - New material released by Noted Historian Hickey.
With the release of the some new books, including Hickey's Don't Give Up the Ship: Myths of the War of 1812 (2006) fact that Canada did not Win this war should be disputed. Also interesting article here about the fact the of the US losing to Canada. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mwar1812.htm Deathlibrarian 03:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Straight Dope is hardly a rigourous academic source! Mr. Hickey's opinion is worth rather more, but, then, I haven't read his book yet so I can't say much about it. Lord Bob 00:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Hickey's Don't Give Up the Ship: Myths of the War of 1812 (2006) is quoted as a reference on the front page, and he write one of the foremost books on the war, so I would assume his thoughts would stand for something. 203.35.150.226 02:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The US couldn't lose that war to Canada because as is repeated many many times, Canada did not exist.  Would Hickey also claim that the US defeated France in the seven years war even though the US did not exist when that war was waged?


 * let's read this bit from the straight dope article
 * "A second reason was tactical. Canada wasn't an independent country during the War of 1812 – Britain controlled it. In a war, it would be the easiest territory for the Americans to attack. America's navy was no match for Britain's, so a maritime campaign was impractical. In Don't Give Up the Ship: Myths of the War of 1812 (2006), Donald Hickey notes that the U.S. needed to apply pressure to Britain. He says, "The easiest way appeared to be by targeting Canada. Great Britain's North American colonies were thinly populated and lightly defended."


 * hrmmm, doesn't sound to me as though Hickey is saying Canada even fought that war let alone won it.
 * Zebulin 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well i would consider Canada(Britain/Canadian Colonies) the victor because the USA did not succeed in what it was trying to do with the war(invade and take over Canadian(British/Canadian Colonies) territory.) Although Canada(Britain/Canadian Colonies) did what it needed to do, and that was to prevent he USA from invading, therefore winning the war.

You are of course correct.To be technically correct, the Canadian Colonial forces and the Navy and Army of the British defeated the US, and, yes mainly it was the British forces. Canada did exist, just as a colony, not as a country. Deathlibrarian 07:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Canada as "a" colony did not exist ether. There were a number of British colonies and territories in the northern part of North America collectively known as British North America but separately governed by independent British appointed governors and some local magnates. Although these separate colonies existed on the territory that became part of the later country of Canada, they were hardly a cohesive unit. The later process leading to confederation didn't even start to be formed until well after 1815, some may argue only because of the War of 1812. The colonial forces in BNA were some locally raised military forces, mostly fairly amateur militia from Upper Canada, Lower Canada and Nova Scotia who operated,pretty well only, on their own colonial territories and regular British Army soldiers and Navy seamen who were able to move between the various colonies. Dabbler 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes true, it was two colonies, and they were referred to as the Canadas. Upper and lower Canada, from 1791 (?). However I think the term "Canada" was used loosely to refer to the area from before that? 203.35.150.226 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * don't forget Nova Scotia and PEI (and maybe Newfoundland). The area was commonly called Canada at the time by everyone. Rjensen 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never heard that, please could you cite your sources so I can learn something. Newfoundland was not part of Canada until the 20th century. Dabbler 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nova Scotia played major role in war of 1812 (Halifax was the #1 British naval base for blockade) & when people spoke informally of "Canada" it (and PEI) were usually included. I confess I'm not sure about Newfoundland at the time. Rjensen 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was some use of "Canada" as a general term for this Geographic area way before Upper and Lower Canada were formalised. "maps in 1547 designated everything north of the St. Lawrence River as "Canada."" (From the Canadian Heritage site - http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/o5_e.cfm ) The term "British North America" appears to be quite uncommon, certainly less common than either "Canada" or "New France", particularly before 1812. 203.35.150.226 07:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Deathlibrarian 08:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The usual contemporary general term is America as far as I can see without distinction between the United States and the colonies. Canada I have only seen used in a reference to Upper and Lower Canada, for example I have an antique map dating from early 19th century labelled "Canada and Nova Scotia" showing the area between the west end of Lake Superior and Nova Scotia. New Brunswick is shown as part of Nova Scotia and PEI is still labelled as St John's Island, its French name. The term British North America, as used in the 1867 act, is merely North America with the adjective British to differentiate between the North American colonies and the independent country of the US; contemporary people would probably have used the generic term America or North America unless they were referring to a specific part of the colonies. Canada came in during the 1830-40s when the united provinces of Upper and lower Canada were known as Canada. Dabbler 10:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dabbler, "Canada" was used way before the 1830's. As the Canadian Heritage site says, Canada was a common term, often used on maps...often the term "Canada and New France" to include the French possessions (presumably before the Brits took them). By all means, have a look at the maps, there are 50 maps from period online at http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/pugsley/maplist.htm the earliest one to use "Canada" being from 1597. Deathlibrarian 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I obviously haven't made myself clear. I am talking about usage in 1812, not any other time. At that time, Canada was the geographical, not political, term used for what we now call Quebec and parts of Ontario, it did not include Nova Scotia or what are now the Atlantic provinces, it did not include what is now northern Ontario and the Hudson Bay Company territories. Upper and Lower Canada were two separate colonies with separate political administrations and governors. Originally what we now call Quebec was called New France, the name Canada was also used but just for that area and it was a geographical term. Using Canada as a political term for what later became the dominion is historically inaccurate. Dabbler 09:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...people at the time certainly used the term "Canada" in reference to the war of 1812. It seemed to be the culturally acceptable term that was used for all of British North America. They didn't say "Canada and Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces" or "British North America". If it was the term used historically, it should be the correct term for us to use today when dicussing these occurences, unless there are multiple uses of the term that could make it confusing. However the use of the term does not refer to the modern Canadian state, it refers to the colonies that were referred to as "Canada" at the time.Deathlibrarian 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide a contemporary (i.e. early 19th century) example of the usage of "Canada" which includes Nova Scotia and/or the other Atlantic colonies which I can actually go to look up (preferably on-line because I am lazy). I have never seen one. I have seen Canada referring to the geographic area of Upper and Lower Canada, but those did not include Nova Scotia or Rupertsland. Dabbler 12:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting nomenclature issues here. I think that after 1776 "America" was only used for USA. Exactly what people did with Maritimes/Nova Scotia is an interesting question (was it part of what people called "Canada"? we know the idea of a Maritimes region is 20th century). I suspect few people used BNA in popular discourse.Rjensen 11:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that the British North American colonies had one common Governor-in-chief who was also the Lieutenant-governor of Lower Canada, so there was a form of political unity at the highest level. The Lieutenant Governors of the different colonies (Upper Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) reported to him. Note also that at the time, the term "Caandian" referred exclusively to the French Canadians, the anglophone colonists considered themselves British, not Canadian. Luigizanasi 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While officially the term for Canada at the time was "Upper Canada and lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (or something like this) it seems simply the word Canada was used at the time to describe the whole colony in common parlance. You can look at period Newspapers online to see people people referring to Canada as such. The use of the "Canadas" is rare. "Canadian" as a term seems to be used to describe the people, whether they are Anglo or Franco. "Canadian and Nova Scotian" is often used, so indicating they had separate identities sometimes, at least. I conducted searches on this newspaper as a primary source http://news.nnyln.org/plattsburgh-republican/search.html which has many articles from 1811 - 1820. 203.35.150.226 07:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
There's some sort of hack in the first paragraph. It's not on the edit page itself, so I don't know how to fix this. Could somebody help? --MrWho100 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

opening should summarize article
The purpose of the opening or "lede" is to summarize the article in a a nutshell, which I have tried to do. Rjensen 02:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done. Haber 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is good, and lede isn't bad, but the lede doesn't mention the "outcome" (I know there is some disagreement as to winners/losers and exactly what the outcome meant for the Brits and Americans). You get casualty figures, dates of the conflict, mentions of the theaters of conflict, and a few contributing causes to the war, but not anything really summarizing the "win/lose/draw" outcome of the war. I was a casual reader who came to the article needing a quick overview, and I had to do a lot of skimming to find out what happened as a result of the war. Perhaps readers like me aren't the target audience, and shouldn't expect an encapsulation up front. I guess I got what I paid for. Cheers--Neil, NC, USA

St. Lawrence and Lower Canada
3rd paragraph has been vandalized. I don't know enough about the history of the war to make the necessary edits. DJMoney 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Category help request
Hello, an over-zealous editor keeps moving the several subcategories located in Category:War of 1812 people directly to the main +cat Category:War of 1812, I don't want to go 3RR over this issue, would someone or several someones intervene to clear up this matter. Perhaps, just speaking to the editor in question would resolve the issue. Thank you Octopus-Hands 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I repeatedly explained, is that some categories are buried 3-deep and hard to find. That is quite unnecessary when there are relatively few articles as in this case. Rjensen 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

State of this article
This article has detiorated since I last took a look at it, principally in terms of spelling, grammar and clarity. I realise that the article has a long history of reflecting whatever the perspective of its last editor was, but it would be very helpful if some proper referencing of opinion could get done. I'm particular amused, for instance, by the idea that it was unwise to discuss democracy, an "American political ideal", in Canada in the early nineteenth century. I suggest that a knowledgeable editor pick a point in this article's history from a few months ago and do a partial revert, keeping only improvements. Jkelly 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that most Canadian history books discuss the reaction against Americanism/democracy and republicanism that took place after 1815 (esp in 1837. (and no I did not add that sentence). Some quotes: #Creighton (1957) " And American institutions and American practices had sunk once more into extreme disrepute." #Lower (1958) "whatever a Loyalist's views on political theory, his views on the treatment he and his had received at the hands of former countrymen were clear-cut. These views, reinforced by the War of 1812 and extending to successive waves of newcomers, were the psychological foundation stones of Upper Canada--Ontario--determining in as great a measure as they did in New Brunswick, its basic outlook down to our own day." (p 156)#Granatstein (Yankee Go Home? 1996) argues the War of 1812, as well as border tensions, reinforced and sustained an overt fear of United States aggression. He argues Canada's elites created a "usable past" of mythical reality about the United States and exploited fears among the voters to make anti-Americanism a potent factor to win elections. Rjensen 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unclear Writing
I think someone should rewrite the article on the War of 1812. The way it is written now lacks style and the sentence structure is poor. It does not flow well and it is not compelling.

Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.160.146 (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


 * You're quite free to do this yourself. I suggest revising a small part of the article, then seeing how other editors react. If you get no objections within a day or two, then revise another small part, and wait, and so on, until the article is improved throughout.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Diplomatic After-effects?
After the war, when were British/Canadian and US relations restored or improved to a better standing? Because relations between Britian and the US surely must not have been good because of this war and the American war of independence, so was it as soon as the Treaty of Ghent was signed that the two countries engaged in regular and friendly contact, or over many years of confidence building when they formed a diplomatic friendship, or even much later on?

The Anglo-American relations page doesn’t shed much light into this, nor any other page I can find detailing the bettering of diplomatic relations with Canada and the US after (and even before) Canadian independance. When did Canada and the US also begin to talk in good terms? 81.111.213.153 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the US focused on Britain and (as always) ignored Canada. There were tensions in the 1830s, 1840s and 1860s involving border disputes and cross-border raids (see Fenians). Good relations came after about 1872 when Alabama claims were settled. Rjensen 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alabama claims or Alaska claims?Zebulin 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Commanders listed in info box
Hi, I removed Brock, Scott and Jackson from the commanders listed in the info box, because I felt that in an article about the entire war of 1812, top level commanders would be more appropriate. I think that if we listed theatre commanders and notable commanders in the infobox, we would have to list quite a few people. Brock Jackson and Scott are all linked in the article as well. I wont revert, but I think It's worh a look... Mike McGregor (Can) 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

KEEP IT SIMPLE
The war was an American defeat, why can't everyone just admit it? The Americans started the war, they wanted to take Canada, they failed. So it was a strategic victory; the British held on to Canada and the Americans failed to take it!!! It doesn't god damn matter if Canada was made because the Americans failed to take land from the British!!!Tourskin 22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * it's better to keep it accurate and minimize Canadian mythology and POV. Rjensen 01:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, American mythology is much more acceptable. Fehrgo 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of us have tried and tried to indicate that it was a loss for the US - they failed to take Canada, the US forces were pushed back and Washington was burned. A British army moved around the US unchallenged, and only left US territory when they heard the treaty of Ghent was signed and peace had been declared. At the wars end, the British held US territory in Maine, and the US held no (significant?) Canadian territory. No matter what we do, the American wikipedia writers (and some Canadians) will not change this site to indicate that it was a strategic loss for the US.

Its a shame to see history re written...but its wikipedia, so what can you do?.

If Britain had attempted to invade the US, but instead had their forces pushed back and a counterattack burnt London......I'm sure that would be listed on here as a victory for the US?

Deathlibrarian 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, if the British had attacked the US and we ended up burning London, but later agree to status quo ante bellum, then it's a draw by definition. Especially if after burning London, we went on to attack Birmingham, get beaten, and have to give up the whole campaign...

That wouldn't be the same thing, anyway. Washington, DC in 1814 was little more than a mudhole construction site with no military value whatsoever. Our own Secretary of War didn't think the British would even waste time with it, which was one of the reasons it fell so easily. When the British then went on to attack something that mattered (Baltimore), they were defeated. It was an embarrassment, but not a major military defeat. Lastly, the argument about repulsing the invasion of "Canada" is specious. Yes, there were many Americans who wanted to conquer it, but no declaration of war would have passed Congress based on that. The issues of impressment, the British inciting Indians and interfering with our trade were the issues that got the declaration of war passed. If anything, we were hoping to "teach a lesson" to the British and gain respect. In that, we perhaps bit off more than we could chew, but we won enough battles that the British negotiated with us as equals at Ghent, and from then on. Jsc1973 08:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Look mate - feel free to attack Birmingham anytime you want. You'll be doing us all a favour!

Name change from Great Britain to United Kingdom
I have changed the first mention in the introduction from "Great Britain" to "The United Kingdom". The act of Union 1801 formally cements Great Britain's name as "The United Kingdom," in much the same fashion as "The United States" (of America). I think it's more clear to refer to Great Britain pre-1801 and the United Kingdom post 1801.
 * I reverted back to the form used by the great majority of historians and reference books: Britain. Look at the titles in List of War of 1812 books for conclusive evidence. (United Kingdom is not the official name, only an abbreviation, but Britain or Great Britain is the abbreviation used in history). Rjensen 13:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you consult the Act of Union 1801, in this very wikipedia, you'll find the official name of my nation to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Therefore why are you claiming it is not an official name? An abbreviation? Clearly it is not. Clearly it is in legal law, and in an Act of Parliament, the name of the UK.

I think you're wrong on this.

Kaenei 13:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * you're right: formal documents use the formal name "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Historians shorten that to "Great Britain" or "Britain" (They do not shorten it to "United Kingdom" as the book titles demonstrate). Rjensen 14:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Use United Kingdom for goodness sake. There is a difference between the United Kingdom (post 1801) and the Kingdom of Great Britain that existed before that year. How hard is it to use the name United Kingdom and the usage of some historians is not a convincing argument to use Great Britain. I replaced Great Britain with United Kingdom. This is a silly argument --84.153.63.193 10:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki editors are not allowed to impose their own personal preferences. A check through the bibliography will show that the vast majority of scholars, editors and reference books use "Britain" or "Great Britain". The question is how to shorten the long official name and very few historians prefer the UK version. For example (using Amazon.com for search) Berton (Canadian) Flames Across the Border: 1813-1814 always uses "Britain" (27 pages) and never United Kingdom (0 pages). Benn (British) uses UK 4 times and Britain 32 times. Hickey (US, 1990 book), uses UK once (in a quote) and Britain on 88 pages. Rjensen 11:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm British and I want GREAT BRITAIN or BRITAIN. NOT United Kingdom. Thanks [Pagren]
 * Which matters not in the least. Please follow the arguments presented.Tgm1024 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the British politicians and schoolteachers are worried about losing Northern Ireland hence all this silliness concerning enforcement of the new UK short form. For years and years, Great Britain was standard.  Churchill used it.  The British people need to stand up for GB, which is much cooler-sounding. Haber 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Observations
I have to say, this article needs proper contribution from people in the know from BOTH sides. I think it's hard to argue this article isn't slightly in favour/biased to American events and perspectives. Whilst I acknowledge the 1812 war had more impact and remembrance in the US than the UK, it doesn't change the outcome. I won't bother listing reasons why I think the outcome recorded for the article is too much in favour of the US, as plenty of people have done that above.

Shouldn't we try to keep this article in the spirit of wikipedia? Becuase it seems genuine concerns on the British side are just being swept under the carpet to be honest.

Kaenei 12:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its basically impossible to keep this article from being biased towards presenting the US POV. It is constantly re written as such. I think the only way of realistically portraying this would be to have two separate articles, one for the US POV and one for the rest of the worlds!!! Deathlibrarian 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry...I read this article...and it doesnt even seem to be about 1812. As far as I can tell, the americans declared war, won it, and then declared peace because they where nice like that. Seriously though, the entirety of the article is quite US POV.Almost every part of the article seems to go out of the way to make sure noone would think Canada had anything to do with this war, despite the fact various parts where refered to as Canada at the time. I mean..the very opening seems to make the reader believe it was a draw. And even then there a disclaimer right before that, saying that the americans won a major battle shortly before the peace talks. This is utterly terrible. its trying to make one believe that America won the war, or at least would have. Need I remind you of Sir Isaac Brock and his capture of Detroit? Without loss? That was an even larger gain but not mentioned in the opening. This is terribly slanted POV article, no matter how subtle its slants are. Deathlibrarian is right...perhaps we need 2 articles, the real one, and then one for the US to feel happy about.

First paragraph
Are serious?? The first pragraph to this article reads like a jingoistic tale of why the US was justified in attacking Canada, how well they did, despite reality, and how they trounced the evil "injuns". Who wrote that crap? Seriously, why bother having this article at all on Wikipedia, if you can't write it without such jingoistic bias. Deathlibrarian 10:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... let's summarize.. all you canooks dislike this version of history and would like to see it changed? Sorry but you can't rewrite the facts. Your nation has never lifted finger in the pursuit of freedom, your hanging onto our coattails and bitchin about the ride.
 * Let me see, 1914-1917 and 1939-1941, who was fighting for freedom and liberty and who was bitching on the sidelines? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.34.126 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Good one....this sort of response very much reassures me that this page is biased, and is being written from a US perspective. And for the record I'm nto canadian, US or British, I'm an Australian. Deathlibrarian 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to make the first paragraph to be less POV but I see that User:Rjensen has decided its perfect. It seems from comments here that it isn't. So please allow consensus to rule and let us make a few edits to the currently very POV version. Dabbler 01:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the problems here is that the second paragraph has grown beyond a lead anyway. It should summarize the article, not replace it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the title CAUSES of WAR, Para 2, there has been some error in the para.. it is filled with some kind of nonsense....

points needed in lede
I suggest we need these points in the lede: -- is there any objection?
 * 1) US realized it had no chance against the powerful Royal Navy,
 * I disagree with this point. The US Navy had an advantage in one on one ship actions and with their privateers attacking British trade, insurance rates in British waters soared as a result of the Americans capturing of merchant sghips..


 * 1) the Americans planned to seize Canada by land and hold it as a bargaining chip.
 * I think it is partly the terminology, bargaining chip grates strongly, I see their war aim as hoping to expel the British rulers from their North America colonies and have them voluntarily(?) join the US.


 * 1) The war started poorly for the Americans
 * Agreed


 * 1) US attempts to invade Canada were repeatedly repulsed.
 * Agreed


 * 1) The American militia proved ineffective.
 * Agreed but do we need it in the opening paras?


 * 1) The American high command seemed incompetent
 * 2) until the last year when better generals like Andrew Jackson and Winfield Scott emerged.
 * I think all we really need is a statement that American generalship improved during the war.


 * 1) The British blockade of the eastern seaboard ruined American commerce, and led to extreme dissatisfaction in New England. #Although the Royal Navy lost a few single-ship battles it totally controlled the seas.
 * I don't agree that they totally controlled the seas. For example, the US won the last naval action of the war when the US Sloop Peacock took the HEIC brig Nautilus on 30 June 1815.

Rjensen 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Interpolations above made by me, Dabbler. I made my last "compromise edit" before I saw your comments and here. Can we use that to work with? Dabbler 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On American militia: the US strategy was 90% based on assumption that militia would get the job done. They failed pretty badly (except New Orleans) and this should be noted.

On bargaining chip, that is main conclusion of Stagg and other historians--why dies it "grate" on anyone? The topic is covered in spinoff article on causes. American historians agree the US had no intention of keeping Canada. "Control of the seas" means 99% control which the Brits had. Rjensen 17:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bargaining chip trivializes the whole episode. I believe that if the Americans had succeeded in their invasion of the colonies, then they wouldn't have needed to bargain. I also doubt that they would have tamely handed them back in exchange for a promise not to press any more sailors and free trade. This precis of the war has been quoted on this page before and it seems to be a reasonable statement that the whole declaration of war was a negotiating ploy not just the invasion of Canada.

Secondly, the US Navy had pretty free range of the seas around the world including in British waters and caused the RN a lot of problems. It was only where the RN was able to concentrate their forces near the ports on the American coast that they maintained local control. Once the USN ships broke through the blockade, they were free to act until they were caught by a superior force. So I don't accept that the British controlled 90% of the seas. What do you think of my now reverted edit where I tried to compromise? Dabbler 18:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On bargaining chip, I think we should stick with the historians like Stagg. Or perhpas quote Jefferson who used words very close to "bargaining chip" when he advised Madison: August 5, 1812. "With Canada in hand we can go to treaty with an off-set for spoliation before the war." p 183 Jefferson's Works v 13. On the naval issue there are three points. 1) The RN closed down ALL American ports, very successfully (over 95% of traffic stopped), and could move its fleets and soldiers anywhere it wanted. That is Mahanian control of the seas--at the 90% level. 2) several hundred US privateers annoyed British commerce but had no great economic impact (apart maybe from insurance rates, with profits to Lloyds); 3) the one-on-one battles were dramatic all right but not important enough for lead position in article. Rjensen 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is controverted, and it plainly is, it does not belong in the lead; it should be discussed elsewhere. This is a question of what "the Americans" intended to do with victory, and that depends on which American you consider: Madison's foreign policy was not Clay's. Some American historians do deny this; and even if it were an entirely an American-Canadian controversy, so what? Berton is as reliable a historian as any of the Americans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * an article on the war ought to explain the American strategy, which was to seize Canada as a bargaining chip. And more: Madison believed that Canadian food supplies were essential to West Indies and so would be willing to negotiate IF the US seized Canada. As it happened at Ghent neither side had made any gains and neither wanted the war to continue, so it ended. All this is pretty standard historiography and I still have not seen anyone cite a different view. Rjensen 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict; but it will do as reply) I would not summarize Stagg's description of Madison's policy as using Canada as a bargaining chip: "the growth of Canada had the potential to destroy the very basis of Madison's policy of commercial restriction: his assumption that the British empire was dependent upon the United States for 'necessaries'....it was entirely logical for him to conclude by 1812 that the time had come to deprive Britain of Canada." (p.46) "...the empire, without Canada, would be entirely dependent on the United States." (p.47) To take Canada and then offer the British American (and Canadian) trade in exchange for good behavior is not the same thing as offering Canada back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "necessaries" also includes naval supplies from outside Europe, of course...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Canada "as a means to American ends" would be quite reasonable; although it is clear that some Americans wanted to liberate the Canadians for their own sakes also. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (another edit conflict) If you are quoting Jefferson, what about his statement about expelling Britain from its North American colonies, that sounds like a significant war aim. Practically, the only effective way the US could harm Britain was to attack its colonies in North America and harry its maritime trade. In treaty making, any advantage can be used as a bargaining chip, so to say that the capture of the colonies would have been used as one is trivial, the question is what is the actual aim of your strategy. Any success in taking over some or all of the colonies would undoubtedly have resulted in them being permanently annexed to the US, not handed back in exchange for a promise not to press Americans any more.
 * The US Navy developed strategies and tactics to counteract the overwhelming strength of the British. American trade had already been crippled by the US government's own Embargo Act which banned American trade. The British blockade was actually looser in the north east to try and split the North east from the rest of the country. Dabbler 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jefferson was mostly afraid of Indian raids and suggested that the US needed to control the Lake Huron region for that reason. As for "bargaining chip" metaphoir it is widely used by historians and should be used here. Thus: 1812: "Lower Canada provided a territorial bargaining chip at the peace table." (Borneman (2004)- Page 215; "to use as a bargaining chip in peace" (Carl Benn (2002) (British) - Page 63); "a bargaining chip in the peace negotiations" (The War of 1812: A Short History (1995) Page 56 by Donald R. Hickey); "If Canada were seized, it could be used as a bargaining chip" (Feldman (2005) p 197); "Canada as an important bargaining chip in resolving issues with Great Britain" (Barney (2001) p. 91). " a "bargaining chip" to gain concessions from Great Britain" (Drew and Snow (1988) p 333). "to use as a bargaining chip in peace negotiations" (Anderson et al 2006 p 247).  Rjensen 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Was 1812 "bargaining chip" Canada the search phrase? Scholar.google.com works for 1812 "annex Canada" too, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Historians have pretty much settled the annexation issue: read out Origins spinoff article: Madison and his advisors believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their West Indies colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Frontiersmen demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land (they had plenty), but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking settlement of the west. As Horsman concludes, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it." Hickey flatly states, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war." Brown (1964) concludes, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation not to annex Canada." Burt, a leading Canadian scholar, agrees completely, noting that Foster, the British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal.  Rjensen 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of Stagg here is an example of selective and misleading quotation, lacking, I notice, a page number; frontiersmen may not have wanted to keep Canada but Madison clearly did. The rest of this is such scholarship as books.google.com can easily supply. Using 1812 "annex Canada" gives sources on both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Rjensen on this one. Very convincing. Haber 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * well I just went through Google on ANNEX CANADA and no--there are maybe 2 cites pre 1955 that say the US wanted to annex Canada in war of 1812 (other cites say US did NOT want to do so, or discuss other decades). Let's see if PManderson can find one quotation from any prominent historian post 1950 that says US policy was to annex Canada. I doubt it. Rjensen 21:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be closer to the truth to say all of these texts (but Hickey, which is first) say that Americans wanted to annex Canada in 1812. For many of them, the Americans in question are the War Hawks, not the Administration ; but not all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Clay's policy is not hard to substantiate; if Rjensen specifies which two books he found at books.google.com, I will find four others. In addition, Albert Z. Carr, The Coming of War, p.298 "Clay and the men around him saw a war with England as productive of nothing but good for the West. Their minds were filled with a dream of war in which Florida and Texas would be seized to the south; Canada to the north; there would be glory; there would be gain; there would be new states added to the Union..."


 * For Madison, I have quoted Stagg already. In addition, Pierre Berton discusses not only Clay, but also "Here the American government's view had hardened. Canada - or at least part of it - must be ceded to the Union." Flames Across the Border (1981), p.282-3.


 * These are the first two authors I picked up; need I find more? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And do remember the position I hold is that this is disputable, and should be discussed out of the lede; no more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * a statement is "disputable" means there are different opinions among scholars. I cited a lot of scholars and Pmanderson has not cited any. So what's the dispute??? between Pmanderson's opinions or OR and the list of scholars? Rjensen 23:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the choice is between Rjensen's claim of consensus, which is as false as his claim about the books.scholar.com. books) and the fact of dispute. Ten of the first twelve of those say that Americans wanted to annex Canada (sometimes only the War Hawks). (One is not full-text accessible, but appears to agree; one is Hickey.) 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On Pmanderson's cites: Albert Z. Carr's popular book is dated 1960 -- well before the modern research; does Berton cite Stagg??? Rjensen 23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At all? Yes. For the point quoted, he cites Monroe's papers. But as Rjensen moves the goalposts: Berton says much the same as Carr about Clay, differing only in that the Southwest was what Clay's men wanted for themselves; Canada was the prize offered the rest of the Union. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The instructions issued by Washington to the negotiators make clear that Canada is to be a bargaining chip (the instructions were written when the US controlled most of Upper Canada--which it soon lost): Papers of James A. Bayard, 1796-1815 [AHA 1915] [in books.google.com] January 1814 Instructions to US negotiators: Page 263ff; "these instructions are formed on a presumption that the British Government will make the restitution of Canada sine qui non in any treaty you may make ....Should this be the case it is not intended to carry on the War rather than yield to that unequal condition but it may justly be expected that G B. will be the more liberal on other points to be adjusted."  Rjensen 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, Berton takes this very paper the other way around: The inevitable consequence of another war, and even of the present, if perservered in by the British Government must be to sever these provinces by force from Great Britain. = The British aren't negotiating; if they don't make peace right now, Canada will and must become American. Berton doesn't think Monroe was right in this calculation; as Monroe's next sentence shows, he was still counting on the Canadians rebelling to republican liberty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In January 1814 the US held much of Upper Canada. Madison told his negotiators that the British would insist on its return, in which case they were to return it and get something else desirable (like fishing rights). That's called a bargaining chip. As it happened a few months later the US lost control of Canada and thus lost the chip.  The Brits had the same strategy, with invasions of New York and New Orleans planned to get THEM some chips (Both invasions failed). Thus in the end neither side had any chips, so they called it a day. Rjensen 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Much oversimplified. Calling it a day would have been uti possedetis (i.e., British Maine); to say nothing of the fact that New Orleans did not affect the Treaty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * someone who cites pop history published decades ago should not complain about oversimplification. In fact neither side in Dec 1814 had any bargaining chips and no reason for continuing to fight. Big men in London like Wellington said it weas time to call it quits. Rjensen 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both Carr and Berton would agree with the last sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious the US wanted Canadian Land? It seems to be constantly reiterated that land wasn't needed, the US had plenty. If this was the case, why were settlers and Frontiersman at the time constantly killing and driving Native Americans out to get theirs? Do you think it unhappy coincidence that the Native Americans all ended up losing their native lands and ended up squashed into comparatively tiny reservations? (or in some cases driven across the border.....or dead. Similarly, why did the US want (and take) the Spanish possessions if land wasn't of interest to them?. 203.35.150.226 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen's credibility is zero when he states that the US held "much of Upper Canada" in January 1814. It held very little of Upper Canada then. If the accuracy of the rest of his statements matches that claim then I know what I think.
 * I don't like responding to secretive ghosts who don't sign their snide comments. I was referring to Washington's perceptions--as Berton noted, Lake Erie became an "American lake", the British evacuated Detroit and were decisively defeated at Thames, where the Indian alliance was broken and the British swept from nearly all western Ontario. This gave the US the Huron line that Jefferson had sought. Rjensen 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And the Americans expected to take the rest of Upper Canada without difficulty; what prevented them was the difficulties of logistics with a hostile population.If Harrison's army could have gotten to Lundy's Lane, it would have turned out differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Additions to consequences of the war of 1812 for British North America
Planetary Chaos has decided to label me as a vandal, indicating that he does not have a clear understanding of what this term means in the context of Wikipedia. The additions I have made to this article were clear objective, factual and done in good faith.

He contends that I did not seek the community's approval before making the changes. Given that I was adding facts, this hardly seems necessary, but nonetheless, I will discuss it now.

The existing conclusion for British North America ignores several long lasting results, namely:

1) The war led to the construction of three forts in Canada designed to defend against an American attack; 2) The war led to the choice of Ottawa as the capital of Canada; 3) While the Britain was able to largely repulse the American attempts to invade Canada, it was not a complete victory as the war left lasting scars (so did WWII); and 4) The war created a rift between British North America and the United States which eliminated the possibility of British North America joining the United States, even during the Rebellions of 1837. Tingkai 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1-2-3 ok but drop #4 as untrue. The Canadians did not have democracy and had no voice in the matter. Rjensen 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well #4 is true in the sense that there was and never has been any popular movement to join with the US at any time following the war. There have been suggestions but these were never popular enough to be implemented. As for the blanket statement that "Canadians" did not have democracy, that is also arguable. They did not have universal franchise, but neither did the Americans at the time or for many years after the Canadians achieved it. They didn't have properly representative government until after 1837, but there were elections of a sort to the colonial assemblies albeit tightly controlled by the establishment. Dabbler 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The war of 1812 had little to do with the question of joining USA, so it should not be mentioned as a "result" of the war. The Canadians had little or no voice in the matter of joining USA and demands for a greater voice were suppressed by royal authorities for years. Rjensen 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The point being made was that one result of the war was that, due to antagonism caused by the war, there was never a popular movement for the colonies to join the US even during the rebellions of 1837. The antagonism is the "result". When those rebelling against authority don't agitate to join the nearest other country, you can be sure that it isn't popular even among the disenfranchised. Dabbler 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * let's just drop the bit about "eliminated the possibility of British North America joining the United States, even during the Rebellions of 1837." that assumes a democratic Canada that could vote on the matter (which was the point of the rebellions) Fact is London made all the decisions and at any time it could have sold Canada to USA, with no regard to Canadian public opinion Rjensen 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or a revolutionary Canada, which could have made its own decisions. Lord Durham's Report was a massive concession to Canadian opinion; what it would have read if there had been Canadian sentiment for North American union is conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with point 4 then it does not make sense for you to restore text that makes a similar point, namely that the War of 1812 germinated the seeds of nationalism in Canada. Yes, political decisions were made in London until 1867, but why did British North America not rebel in the same way that the American colonies did, particularly when so many people in Upper Canada were born in the United States or descended from Americans? And when there were rebellions in 1837 demanding a republic, why did the rebels not talk about joining the United States? The answer is the War of 1812 created a long lasting rift. The United States went from being a country with different political ideas (republicans vs loyalists), to a military enemy as a consequence of the War of 1812. I would, however change "eliminated the possibility of British North America joining the United States" to "reduced the likelihood..." Tingkai 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to the four points previous mentioned, I have restored them to the consequences section. If anyone disagrees, please explain why in this section before making any changes. Tingkai 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

fixing the opening
I rewrote the opening to explain American problems and naval issues more fully. What do people think? Rjensen 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)