Talk:War of 1812

An event mentioned in this article is a June 18 selected anniversary

Previous discussion

• /Archive 1: 2003–2005

Bwahaha!

Canadians march down into the U.S. and burn their white house. Maybe they'll think twice about trying to invade Canada. ;) Funny how most schools in the U.S. leave this part out.

-G

No one marched down from Canada. They were British who came by ship. Good reason to leave it out and if your Canadian school taught you that, then they should have left it out too. A proud Canadian who believes in truth not lies. Dabbler 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually its highly unlikely that there were no Canadians that took part in the burning. The British had to rely on Militia early on so its unlikely that they disbanded them, or that they weren't integrated. Tourskin 22:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Campaigns

To view (and edit) all of the campaign boxes that appear at the bottom of the individual battle boxes, see: War of 1812/Campaigns.

Shouldn't this be moved out of the namespace? into a project page (into wikipedia:xxx) or something? JDR 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• what would people think of a campaign box for naval actions on the great lakes? (ie: Battle of Lake erie, Burlington Races, raids on York, Port Dover, the shipbuilding race on the lakes etc?)Mike McGregor (Can) 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the Battle of Lake Erie, it was the turning point of the Detroit frontier, and so it definitely belongs in that campainbox; we'd lose the essential context if it was removed. (After winning the battle, Perry informed Harrison, then transported Harrison's army to Canada, and then accompanied Harrison's army to the Battle of the Thames. This was his theatre.) --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Chronology of the War of 1812

Chronology of the War of 1812 Still needs some work, but it has many of the key events for the Origins and actual conflict of the War of 1812. Enjoy SirIsaacBrock 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

I'm a touch uncomfortable with the last section "...the Americans had drafted a plan in late 1814 for severing the Upper St Lawrence River during 1815 and it is interesting to speculate what may have occured had the war continued through 1815"

There is an obvious danger of making what if's without context. We could just as easily say that had the war gone on then 100+ Royal Navy ships of the line would have been freed by the ending of the Napoleonic wars (-v- ~17 US ships) or speculate that the Duke of Wellington would have been sent with the army of spain to take on the US. I'm not sure how profitable either line is so I urge we remove the 1815 speculation and leave it at the plan to block the StL.Alci12 19:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that section is quite small and fairly harmless, so I'm not worried about it. If memory serves me right, Wellington thought that the colonies were screwed anyway if the war went on because, despite the British mastery of the oceans, they had lost the Great Lakes and thus given the Americans a great advantage. Simply having a large number of veteran soldiers around didn't mean everything, as Prevost proved as Plattsburgh, and at any rate it's impossible to imagine the British footing the bill for sending Wellington's entire army over. Lord Bob 19:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I fear you memory fails you then. Wellington didn't want to go to America (he was rather busy at the time and fed up of proposals to send forces everywhere but where they would be militarily useful - south america/ walcheren), but was quite clear he would if ordered go, the plan was the governments and the cost affordable - fraction of the loans Britain was offering to continental powers in 1814. Britain dominated the oceans not the great lakes because she was fighting a global war which necesitated blockading/fighting France on the oceans and left little to spare for the lakes - in terms of manpower or finance; both would free up on the end of the N war. What ifs are bad historial practice avoided by all good sources and often POV it does nothing to wikis good that they crop up so often in articles Alci12 14:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that "what ifs" should not normally have a place in a straight history. They could be useful in a place where someone did something unexpected and the "what if" could demonstrate what might have happened if they had done the expected. In this case the "what if" does not illuminate the subject, it just adds speculation. The war was over, plans may have been made but there is no evidence that a. they would have worked or b. had the effect anticipated. Dabbler 15:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

AGeneral Isaac Brock was killed in the war of 1812. You probably knew that already. O.o;

Canadian Military History Task Force

hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. We're currently looking for the task force people to joint so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

all that vandalism...

Would it be worth protecting this article for a set period of time to see if maybe the vandals move on to somthing else? would it be possible to protect the page so that only people with a user profile can edit (as opposed to preventing all editing)? just a thought...Mike McGregor (Can) 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protect it Battlefield 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, block the IP. It's consistent.--SarekOfVulcan 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And then two others show up. Figures. SP requested and received.--SarekOfVulcan 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the SP SirIsaacBrock 18:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters)

This Category has been tagged for Speedy Deletion comments welcome HERE. Battlefield 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I created that category to gather articles more relivent to canadian military history for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force , please don't deleate it Mike McGregor (Can) 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

"Some Americans argued that the majority of the population in the British colonies would rise up and greet an American invading army as liberators..."

I'd like to see a reference for this quote. Sounds like idle USA-bashing. ("Stupid Americans who think they'll be greeted as liberators, then and now.") If no reference can be provided, the claim should be removed. 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC+2)

I have read that statement before, so I agree that it is true. I did NOT add it to the article and I cannot remember the citation, perhaps, you could do a search on Google Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen this argued too. It's 6:30 in the morning where I am, I'm watching the Olympics, and you'd better believe I can't be bothered to look it up right now, but I will try and remember. Lord Bob 14:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the statment by Jefferson ("the acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching") supports the above statement.Mike McGregor (Can) 21:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)]

I don't know about the Americans expecting the population of Canada rise against the British, yet there is evidence in abundance of American overconfidence regarding the outcome of a conflict between British forces in the Canadas and American armed forces. ALMandel 15:12, April 5th 2006.

I don't know which way this bias seems to point, seems like a nice Americanized version of the war mostly highlighting American success's and trying to paint them as a victimized underdog when they were in fact the aggressors. Face it the War of 1812 was LOW on Britians priority list in 1812 with Napolean raging in Europe, who cared about the forest? Facts are good (some need citation) but it stills seems like an American point of view. JustinMcL March 28th 2006

I agree with Mike McGregor and ALMandel there is abundant evidence of the American belief (including Jefferson's statement quoted in the article) that taking Canada would be a piece of cake. Many editors have commented on the article's balance. A great deal of work has gone into keeping that balance. I'm removing the NPOV tag. Sunray 06:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Now there is a difference between believing that There will be insuffieceint resistance, and believing that a Popultation will rise up in arms to help you. The Phrasing of the sentence in question, implies something different than the Jefferson quote does, so it should either be altered to be semantically consistant with what Jefferson said, or it should be cited appropriotly. Lucas(CA) August 1, 2006

Though I'm not sure about that quote specifically, the Americans did seem confident that they could win without any troubles. Additionally, to say that the belief that Canadian would not have assisted was entirely wrong would be a mistake. There were those during the war that either

A) Believed it didn't matter who was calling the shots, life would be the same, or B)Preferred Americans over British. I thought about adding that in but then I figured that it might be a little insignificant. If anyone feels otherwise go crazy. In any case, I would not recommend removing this as it seems like someone would have said it eventually, Americans being Americans (Two Words: Manifest Destiny).

Devero

Opinion Request

Opinions on whether the following articles can/should have a campaign box:

• Raid on Elizabethtown
• Raid on Gananoque

SirIsaacBrock 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Consequences section

I notice the consequences section has become quite large, I suggest we move this section to it's own article and leave a summary in it's place. Please let me know what you think. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote Results of the War of 1812 without moving over much information from the main article to avoid edit wars. However, I suggest we combine the two sections into the new article to make the main article smaller and more manageable. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, go for it. Previous discussions have pointed out that this article is to long, so you should not get much grief. I suspect most would support you. Luigizanasi 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

REWRITE:

If we were to do a full article rewrite, I was wondering if we should change the structure to the following:

1) Introduction

2) Origins

3) Theatre of operations

• 3.1) Detroit frontier
• 3.2) Chesapeake campaign
• 3.3) American south
• 3.4) Niagara campaigns
• 3.5) St. Lawrence/Lake Champlain frontier
• 3.6) Naval engagements

4) Results

This is for discussion purposes only, so please don't start WW1 100 years early -:) SirIsaacBrock 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

could I suggest: 1) "detroit frontier" remains "American North-West" to also include Tecumseh's Ohio campaign, raids along Lake Erie, Mackinac, etc 2)"Niagara campaigns" becomes "Niagara campaingns and Lake Ontario" to include the raids on York, Sacketts Harbour, Oswego, etc. 3) Naval Engagements be given a sub-section for the Great Lakes/Lake Champlain (as the Provincial Marine was a somewhat seperate force from the Royal Navy). Mike McGregor (Can) 12:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge request

The section on the consequences has more content than the "main" article Results of the War of 1812. The section should be summarized in one or two paragraphs, and the rest of the content moved.—thames 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. :-) Luigizanasi 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sunray 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Much agreed. Also merging of the Origins of the War of 1812. It doesn't make sense for these to be separate. --Parenthetical Guy 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Military Info Box

The Military Information Box for the overall conflict includes the following: "*Volunteers were semi-professional troops"

What is the basis for this? It's obvious to see that the volunteer crews of the US Navy did their job admirably in a professional manner in the duration of the war. Adding the footnote about the volunteers seems unnecessary and unsubstantiated. Auror 00:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Volunteers" was an official designation for some US troops at the time. Volunteers were neither regular army nor militia - they volunteered for up to a year of service (militias were called up only when deemed necessary). Most notable were the Kentucky Volunteers in the Battle of the Thames, where Tecumseh fell.

Timber trade as a major cause of the War

I don't want to get into an edit war but I am really puzzled by your claim that timber trade was amajor cause of the War of 1812. I have read fairly extensively histories of the War of 1812 (and I am based in Canada but of British origin). I have hardly ever seen more than a passing reference to the loss of American timber for British shipbuilding. What is usually said is that American supplies being unavailable was a reason for the subsequent increase of the importance of the Baltic trade. I have never read anywhere timber as the primary reason for American expansionism into what would become Canadian territory. Please provide the references for your claim that it was a major cause of the war. Thanks. Dabbler 11:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Further comment:- according to Wikipedia's own article, Economic history of Britain the loss of the American colonies had no major impact on the British economy and in fact may encouraged wealth creating trade with the former colonies and other nations. Britain was able to defeat the French by its economic strength not despite its weakness. I think this whjole section is seriously misinformed as it currently stands. Dabbler 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As there has been no response to this I will be rewriting the section in the near future to conform with my sources which are silent on the significance of the timber trade in the economic rise of Britain in the 18th century, preferring to ascribe it to a little thing called the Industrial Revoltion. Dabbler 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

origins of the war

why is this section so long? It refers to a main 'origins' article where this information is or should be located. Most of this section should be merged to that main article and deleted from here. If not, why have the separate 'origins' article at all? Thanks Hmains 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to shorten it but you reverted to the longer version which contained inaccuracies. If you have problems with my version, please edit that instead of just reverting. Thanks. Dabbler 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I find that this section is slightly misleading, my understanding is that the blockade was meant to keep France, in affect NAPOLEAN, from trading with america, not to keep the U.S.A. from european trade all together. samsomite 7:56, 9 September 2006

The origins section should mention that there were Americans in New England who opposed the hostilities (and were vocal about it), largely due the disruption it would cause to their cross-border trade with the Canadian colonies. Many New Englanders continued to trade with the British throughout the war, and there was even talk of secession - culminating in the Hartford Convention. This section should note that American opinion on the war was not unanimous, and that many War Hawks came from "frontier" states who stood to benefit most from the acquisition of British North American lands. SCrews 16:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed from main page

This doesn't seem to be appropriate as it stands and rather contradicts the main thrust of the atrticle that the war should be considered a stalemate.

America's First Vietnam?

The war of 1812 is sometimes seen as America's first Vietnam. The US major goal of invading Canada was repulsed, while the British main goal of defending Canada and repulsing the American forces was achieved. The British also took several harsh swipes at the American government; Detroit was surrendered and occupied by the British, the capital was invaded with numerous government buildings destroyed, the majority of battles were won by the British and the Americans lost more ships than the British. According to Historian John Eisenhower, depending on definition, the war of 1812 was the first war that the US army lost.

Please give reasons here if you want to replace it. Dabbler

Who lost most?

• Rather than stick with stalemate and have people keep inserting comments about which side really lost, perhaps we can find and include statments supporting claims that each side (and the Indians) lost --JimWae 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • US successful in getting British to vacate forts in US territory
  • US Navy had successes vs British, winning the majority of naval battles
  • US failed to add Canada, failed to remove British from NA
  • Britain failed in its attempt to invade New York
  • Indians lost protection of Britian in US frontier
  • US lost slaves freed by British
  • US won "The decisive battle of the war" according to Winston Churchill, (The Battle of Plattsburg)
  • drive to abolish slavery was halted
  • US burnt York (then the capital, now called Toronto)
  • British Burnt Washington**
  • British forces were not driven from US soil, but left in order when the peace treaty was signed**
  • British held the only significant land gain after the war (Maine)**
  • With the vacation of British forts in territory claimed by the US, the US sovereignity over that land became undisputed, setting the stage for western expansion
  • British won the majority of land battles**
  • British troops had finished war in Europe, and were starting to move to the US to continue battle**
  • Last military Victory of the war was achieved by the British - Fort Bowyer**
  • War ended with British army on US soil, but no US army on Canadian soil**
  • British troops,Canadians and Indians achieved a number of victories when they were heavily outnumbered**
  • US troops achieved a number of victories when they were heavily outnumbered
  • British Fleet in US territory at the end of the war (at Biloxi?), left untouched**
  • British refused to revoke the policy of impressment at the Ghent treaty**
  • The US only defeated superior numbers of British troops in two battles, and then largely because the US were defending from fortified positions against British in the open**
  • US lost invasion of Canada because it was split into four different attacks, with no communications between them (according to Winston Churchill - History of the English Speaking People)
  • US lost the war at the battle of Chryslers Farm

Specific mention of the White House being burned and gutted should be included too - if nothing else, it served a significant blow to US morale.

Copy of lead from another online encyclopedia

how can something be plagarism when you credit the original author?--Kev62nesl 05:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim its is called the fair use doctrine, being it is an american author writing the article the fair use doctrine would apply--Kev62nesl 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement then - still, usually sources are not incorporated wholesale into another work without quotes AND direct attribution. The page says "All rights reserved". Even if that were not an issue, a direct copy from another encyclopedia does not indicate any indepepndence or originality in wikipedia. Aside from that, the text is awful. Who decides it's the most forgotten and why is that important enough to be in the lead? It does not even say clearly who was involved or how long it lasted --JimWae 05:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

reworded and referenced--Kev62nesl 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it so much "confirmed US independence" anymore than NOT starting the war would have - it was more that if the US lost, it could very well have ended up a colony again. If enough changes are made there is no need to use that source. ALso there is hardly any formatting in your new version. How is this an improvement over the previously existing wiki-text? --JimWae 05:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that is comfirmed that the US was independent, correct me if my study of histroy is wrong but after the war were US merchant sailor forced into service of the crown. Maybe I have missed it but that stopped after the war. Which was one of the origins of the war and thus was one the original aims of the war to stop thses things from happening. So I didnt see the original opening as correct. thats the great thing about wiki if you disagree someone can present and opposing view and expand knowledge. --Kev62nesl 06:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to read more of the article - the war with Napolean ended FIRST (necessitating another change in your intro) - and impressment stopped because they did not need sailors as desperately - though the UK considered most of those impressed had deserted anyway. Impressment was not covered in Treaty of Ghent --JimWae 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I didnt think Napolean was finally defeated until June 18th of 1815. Secondly while impressment might not have been covered in the treaty it ended after the war--Kev62nesl 06:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There seem to have been breaks in the Napoleonic Wars (during the exile at Elba) and apparently impressment ended before the 1812 war ended AND the Brits were able to send more troops to NA. If you disagree with something, do not just replace it with another POV - counter it with alternate POV. Your lead is quite US-centric - especially "lone bright points for US" part. --JimWae 07:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

while lone bright points definitly could be reworded to be less US-centric, the war was not the resounding British victory that the previous intro had made it seem, the previous intro made it seem as if there was a spanking administered by a parent and then the child was sent to their room, which is not the case. --Kev62nesl 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if taking somebody else's introduction wholesale and rewording bits of it is legal (and IANAL so I'm not touching it), it's pretty lousy practice. There only seems to be one person here trying to hoist this new introduction, and it's a pretty crummy, POV-ridden introduction at that. I'm reverting back to a version which has survived I don't know how long. You don't like the one sentence which addresses how the war went, change the sentence. Lord Bob 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to that, I've tidied up the introduction a bit. You are right in that one sentence was pretty bad, and I think this one points out the situation in a more balanced manner. Lord Bob 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The British attacks on US teritory were more retaliation than serious attempts to reconquer the lost colonies. The real "loss" for the British was that they had to give up their violations of American sovereignty and perhaps treat the country more seriously. Dabbler 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that. Certainly, things like the burning of Washington were just getting the Americans back, but some of the campaigns (the Battle of Plattsburg in particular comes to mind) seemed to be real grabs. Lord Bob 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Troop Strengths

The listed numbers for the sizes of the respective armies appear incorrect, or possibly from different times during the conflict. This paper lists The December 1814 British army in North America at 52,163 men and the U.S. regular army at 38,186(in September 1814). The page's troop total listings of 99,000 and 10,000+ do not reflect this. Perhaps the 10,000 number comes from the troops under Prevost marching along Lake Champlain? I don't know where the 99,000 number comes from either, though the other U.S. numbers seem to be of persons who served at any time during the war rather than at any single moment. I propose a change the army strength estimates to specify December 1814 and to use 52,000 British and 36,000 US regular army as estimates. --Noren 23:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been dispute over the numbers in the war in the past. In this case, as the source is not a peer-reviewed journal article or a published book (despite the fact that Mr. Graves has done some excellent scholarly work on the war), I'd consider it secondary. Troop strength estimates are always a bit of a guessing game, although Graves's assertion of British regular strength at this point is five times ours for the course of the war. If memory serves, our numbers originally come from Donald Hickey's The War of 1812 and have been augmented by looking at another source or two. Any chance you could track down some more scholarly information to support the most drastic change, that of 52,000 British regulars during 1814? I'd be happy to look myself, but as I'm well away from my university for the summer I don't have access to the library. Lord Bob 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not near a suitable library either, unfortunately. The article I mention above cites army pay records for 48,163 of the reported troops. Quoting from it, "...these monthly returns will be found in the War Office 17 Record Group of the Public Record Office. Although care must taken with the figures in these records as they will often vary from the more detailed and reliable regimental returns found in War Office 25, the monthly returns provide a fairly broad overview of the general dispositions of the army." I don't have access to "War Office 17 Record Group of the Public Record Office", but nothing in here strikes me as being less than credible. Could someone please elaborate further on what the sources were for the existing 99,000 and 10,000 figures? --Noren 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As I was not involved in getting the numbers, I have no more information than I already relayed. Hopefully somebody else will be able to chime in. Lord Bob 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit more. The source for the 10,000+ number appears to be this edit, referencing Elting rather than Hickey. Looking up page 11 of Elting, the paragraph this statistic was taken from reads:

At the outbreak of war Prevost commanded approximately 10,000 regular troops, British and Canadian. The latter were "fencible" units, raised for service only in North America, but equal to British Regiments in training and equipment.¹⁶ A more powerful regular force than the United States possessed at that time and far more ready for combat, it was scattered from Nova Scotia to the Great Lakes, and would require months to concentrate.

It is clear that the version as it currently exists is not a comparison taken at the same time, but of numbers from two different sources referring to different times. The Elting source for the 10,000 number specifies that at that time this was more regulars than the US possessed, not a factor of ten fewer as the current summary panel misleadingly suggests. I'm inclined to edit to replace the current numbers with those from here, adding a comment to specify December 1814 for BOTH numbers as the time of comparison.--Noren 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the edit that inserted the 99,000 figure here. There was no reference or reason given in talk or in the article. The editor 64.83.134.2 who made the change appears to be an anonymous, habitual vandal. I'm reverting to the non-vandalism-sourced 57,000 figure from Hickey for now; I'm still wanting to unify the timeframe as I mention above and will plan to proceed with that later. --Noren 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

while were on the subject of the info box, where does the "17,000 other deaths" in the US casualties come from, what does it account for? Is anyone abel to insert a footnote similar to the ones for volunteer strength and militia strength? is ther a better approach to explaining this?

Win, lose or draw? (round n)

Stalemate or loss for the US?

I'm confused how this war is considered a stalemate. The 'win conditions' for Canada/Britain was to defend Canada from invasion. The result was that they marched on Washintgon DC and burned the Whitehouse down. It looks like a total victory for Canada/Britain to me. Can anyone elaborate on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added on 2006-04-12 02:43:16 by 199.172.169.15.

Personally, I agree with you. However, my understanding is that it is considered a stalemate because the war ended status quo ante bellum. Moreover, particularly towards the end of the war, the British did have a policy of trying to take American territory, and were unable to hold most of what they got (and, of course, the Treaty of Ghent took what they did keep away). So that's my understanding for the justification. At any rate, there have been previous discussions/edit wars over the matter and consensus seems to be that it was a draw. Lord Bob 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this debated over and over on usenet, and it possibly has been for decades. This stalemate result is by no means clear. There is a large contingent of people (including famous 1812 historian John Eisenhower) who believe that the US main goal of invading and annexing Canada was unsuccessful, and the British military aim to repulse them was.

If a theoretical border conflict occurred, and there was fighting and the situation returned to the previous status quo, then that would be a stalemate. However, where one country has launched an invasion, and has been repulsed, then they have lost..and it is clearly not a stalemate. I'm sorry guys, IMHO the results should say "US invasion repulsed" or some such thing, to call a stalemate is quite clearly a biased result to the US.Deathlibrarian 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Having read a lot more on the subject, there is a stronger case for this to be a win for the Canadian British forces. If no one disagrees, I think this should be changed to a loss for the US. Just to say "Its always been seen as a stalemate" when the facts indicate that it wasn't seems wrong to me, and indicates possible US bias.Deathlibrarian 07:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should stick to the facts, and putting the treaty result in the results is flawed. Treaties and win/loss results of a war are separate concepts. Win loss results should be based in objectives achieved, not on what a treaty decided. This is normally how Wikipedia treats these things, and there is not need for a pro US deviation here.

As I have stated before, the treaty after the Korean war returned it to the status Quo as well. However, as the US had repelled an invading aggressor in that war, and pushed them back to the status quo...it was a strategic victory for the US. The Wikipedia entry for the Korean War does refers to a strategic victory, not to a treaty.

Hyprocritically, Canada has repelled an invading force back to their original border, and this is somehow different? The historic facts are that the invasion of Canada failed, and this is ignored in the results. This shows a clear bias in this article. If we disagree in the results, then it should be indicated.

I agree that most historians see this as a stalemate, however, increasingly a lot of readers and historians (including John Eisenhower) see this as the US army's first loss. Historical viewpoints change. The US army failed in their attempt to take Canada, the British army not only pushed them out, but burnt Washington, captured a number of cities, and only left US soil when the treaty was signed.Deathlibrarian 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

How can people say that America won, or that it was a tie? If one country invades another country and is defeated, didn't they lose? I understand that the war stoped British harrasment of US shipping, but does that meen they won? The primary objective of any invasion is the capture and occupation of enemy territory, if the Americans didn't acheve this and were turned back, how was the war a tie? (I'm not anti-american or anything, this just gets me alittle confused)-ConfusedCanuck

Quite simple, Confused. You Canadians don't look at the war from the U.S. perspective. The war aims of the U.S. were not solely to conquer Canada. The chief war aims of the U.S. was for Britain to leave the U.S. alone. Canada was a partial goal of the war, but not the whole goal. We wanted Britain to stop impressing American sailors into the Royal Navy; we wanted the right to trade with France and the Continent; and we wanted Britain to stop supporting the Indians in the Northwest and Southwest, which they were doing. Of these aims: 1) No conquering Canada, but we stablized the Northwest Frontier by the (mostly) victorious Niagara campaign and by defeating Tecumseh and his alliance. It wasn't just American aggression into Canada; British forces occupied part of our Northwest for years after independence. 2) Impression of American sailors became a moot point with the ending of the Napoleonic wars, as did interference with American trade. 3) We were fighting British-backed Indians in the Southwest (then Alabama and Florida) and defeated them. Furthermore, in combat with Britain we held our own; for every Detroit, there was a Chippawa; for every Bladensburg, there was a Baltimore; and our Navy excelled in ship-to-ship fighting. In doing so, American arms made it possible to get a status quo ante bellum treaty, which officially makes it a tie; but it was really a war all both sides won, because both sides accomplished their war aims! --GABaker 3 June 2006 20:04 UTC

I am neither American nor Canadian, but Canuck you are completely correct. The two main aims of the US were to annex Canadian land and, as GAbaker says, to stop the impressment of US citizens into the British Navy. The US achieved neither of these objectives with the war (the Brits stopped impressing US seamen before the war started), and they were defeated in their attempt to invade Canada. Not only were the US repelled, but the British army crossed the border, burnt Washington, continued to wander the US, including an unsuccessful attacks on New Orlean, and only left when the peace treaty was signed. The primary objective of Britain was to drive the invaders out, which they did. And they burnt the invaders capital, as well. It is a loss for the US. In addition, the British Army was never driven from the soil. I am not anti American either, and hae a great deal of respect for the US, but IMHO to call a situation where an invasion of a country fails as a stalemate is just pro US propaganda. Deathlibrarian 08:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Canadian I would like to point out that Canada did not exist until 1867. It was Britain and its colonies who fought the Americans. I doubt there were (m)any "Canadian" colonists burning the White House so the usual claim that Canada burned the White House is nonsense. However, the British certainly did not "win" this war because they agreed to return to the status quo. In those days it was normal for winners to claim and obtain teritorial gains as a result of war, if only to reduce the chance of a follow-up atttack. That is how Britain obtained what became Canada from the French. For example if Britain had obtained control of both banks of the St Lawrence by the US ceding territory, then that would have demonstrated a victory. The fact that Britain gained no territory demonstrates that it was NOT a victory, but an agreed stalemate. That is not to say that if the war had continued one or other side would eventually have prevailed but Britain was clearly war weary after defeating Napoleon and so was prepared to accept a stalemate. Dabbler 10:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This cannot be right, America did not achieve a single one of their war aims as a result of their armed aggression against BNA. 1) As I recall a good amount of British victories were on the Niagara pensisula, Lundy's Lane Queenstown Heights ect. 2) Impressment may have stopped, but not as a result of the treaty, the invasion did not strongarm the British into giving up the practice, hindsight is a beautiful thing, the Americans had no assurances that impressment would end when they signed the treaty. 3) The natives may have been defeated, but the British were not forced to stop aiding them, which they continued to do. 4) Numerically the number of victories and lands taken ended up in the favour of the British, making it impossible for "for every Detroit, there was a Chippawa; for every Bladensburg, there was a Baltimore". Navally the Americans did hold their own against the British, not too hard when they were facing the tip of the little finger of the British Navy. Lastly this whole matter of quo ante bellum making it a tie is tiring as it is being used in an improper context to prop up an American bias. When considering who won or lost one must consider the military aims of each combatants. Americas aims were the direct opposite of quo ante bellum, they did not want the borders to stay the same, they wanted BNA, making quo ante bellum a "moot point". Britains goals were to retain control of their BNA possessions, which they did. The American invasion was repulsed, making it objectively a British victory, not much of one considering the land grabbing mentality that would take place which met with some success, only to give the land back, but still a victory none the less. Frankely in personal opinion neither side were great winners of losers (despite evidence that points to clear winners and losers), rather their was just one big loser, the Native Americans who helped the British in hopes of gaining (what was once already theirs) a homeland. Some of the posters on here have a decidedly callous view of the NATIVE AMERICANS (not "indian" mind you) goals, they wanted a home free from American aggression and expansion, (British expansion had been toned down since the Royal Proclaimation of 1763, a cause of the american revolution, or some say) and were fighting for this goal. All in all no one really won anything, rather some just lost.

The Underlieing Goal of the War for America, was the same goal that they fought the quasi war, and the Barbary wars-American Sovernty. Canada, was just a way that Americans thought they could voice their Sovernty, which was being infringed upon by Britain. You must ask your self why America, a land that had a Frotier, that was not settled, and had an excess of Natural Resouces, want Canada. It had no need what so ever for Canada. Why then would you send men do die for something that is totaly and completely irrelvant to anything? The answer to this is because America needed a way through which I could assert its Sovernty against Britain. To make this clear, the American goals, to Canada, and to the War, were the same goals that they fought 3 other conflicts in this era-Sovernty. And although Canada was not taken, America sucessfully asserted its Sovernty, through the course of the war. America's goal in the War was completed, and therefore America can even go so far as to be able to claim sucess in the war. The argument here is that the British, and the Americans had different goals in the war. Yes the British were sucessful in their goals of defending thier territory, but the Americans were sucessful in defending their sovernty. Lucas(CA)

Draw

Something is a stalemate when the two parties involved agree it is a stalemate. when one party may have an advantage but pressing that advantage would do more harm than good they are to a stalemate, as is in chess. Hence the Treaty of Ghent (status quo ante bellum). --Kev62nesl 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly in terms of the treaty, the forces returned to their borders before the war. But in terms of the goals achieved, The US did not achieve theirs, and The UK and Canada did. Ok, the British forces not only repulsed the US forces, but go into the US, burn the capital, capture Maine and Detroit, attack a couple of another cities and then finally leave because a treaty is signed.....and you call that a stalemate?

Apart from that, do you have any references to the British at the time referring to it as a stalemate?

I will give you an example of why this is a biased article. Korean war..North Koreans invaders pushed back to status Quo. Wikipedia says strategic victory for US. Fair enough, and to tell you the truth, I agree.

War of 1812.Us invaders pushed out and UK army wanders around the US, leaving when a treaty is signed.Wikipedia says stalemate? You telling this isn't Biased? C'mon guys!!!!!!! Please leave the dispute remark on the result until someone proves this isn't a biased article.211.28.215.155 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How can the result be in question. The result is as the treaty says, are we disputing that the land didnt change hands, is there some part of the United States that was taken. Napoleon invaded Russia and was occupying russian lands would anyone call what happened in the end a victory, Germany during world war 2 occupied almost all of Europe and we know how that ended. Just because you advance into a land does not mean you can hold it. That is why you call it a stalemate, you cannot hold that which you have taken and you stand to lose more in the end, so you negiotate, Do you think the British didnt want to gain some land, do you think that they were like hey we just had to fight this war on land and on sea but we dont want anything in return, they negotiated a treaty that was in their best interests because of what they stood to lose. I dispute the fact that the U.S. didn't achieve anything during this war.The British ceased the sovereignty violations that the United States had objected to prior to the war and that was the cause of the entire war, had those violation not happened the war would not have occured, this war wasnt ove a land grab scheme. You need not knockout a bully to win a fight, you need only to get him to cease the action that caused the fight. --Kev62nesl 11:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you can argue that it was an American strategic victory because after the War of 1812, Britain never again seriously challenged the United States in north America and on many occasions gave up territory and conceded to the American POV. After the War Britain withdrew from American territory it occupied in the north east of Maine. So the British did withdraw from territory they occupied. Dabbler 11:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kev62NES The fact that you refer to the British as "the Bully" when the US started the war with a well known primary objective of expansionism shows you know very little about the war of 1812. You should read a little bit about this war before you further discuss it.It also shows the level of US bias in this article.

Dabbler in my mind, it would have been a strategic victory for Canada because it halted US expansionism into Canada. Apart from some of the Irish Loyalist raids, the US never again attempted to attack Canada after their disastrous attempt in 1812-1814 Wether Britain challenged the US again in North Anerica does not relate to the goals of the war, and no doubt related to other things as well, so to say it was solely a result of the war is conjecture....If Britain even had the interest/desire to challenge the US in North America any more anyway.

IN short I say change results back to Loss for US 211.28.215.155 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all I was using the bully anaology to illistrate a point being you need not destroy an enemy to achieve a goal , secondly, I call impressing a countries citizen into service and capturing their merchant vessels bullying. Third if you dont think that British challenging the U.S. in North America wasnt a goal of the war you might need to learn a little more about the war.--Kev62nesl 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all Canada did not exist in 1815, so Canada won nothing. Your use of the term Canada in this context emphasises your lack of knowledge or a very POV attitude. Lets discuss this with some relation to reality.

:When I said that Britain did not challenge the US again in North America I was referring to the almost unending British concessions in every dispute with the US over boundaries and borders during the whole of the 19th century. Canada lost a lot because Britain would not be drawn into conflict with the US again. A US strategic victory, n'est ce pas, avoiding ever having to fight to win your way? But I am not arguing for a victory for either side, both won something and both did not gain something and territorially no change. Stalemate. Dabbler 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? You know most objective people would see the US trying to annex land from its much smaller neighbour Canada as bullying. Are you still refusing to admit that land grabbbing was a goal of the US? If so, you haven't even read the Wikipedia article that you are defending!In any event, if you are using "British Bullying" as a defense of the War, it had in fact stopped before the war started.

British Challenging the US....The main aim of the British was to defend the Canadian territory, and to teach the US a lesson. The British never had any designs on further warfare with the US outside doing that, that I am aware of, as far as I know they were just defending their borders. If you know of anything, please state the source.

What I would really like to see here is some British and Canadian viewpoints on the war, not just US onesDeathlibrarian 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A few easy questions to determine if it was a stalemate. Did anyone gain any territory? no. Did one side not expand a large amount of money fighting the war? no. Were the causalties so one side it is undeniable who won? again no. Notice a trend. Oh a U.S. goal that didnt recieve much attention. Stop the British from supporting the Indian (natives) attacks. They did accomplish that. Oh and how do you keep skimming over the soverign violates as if they didn't happen. --Kev62nesl 05:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

oh and for a canadian point of view [1]

I agree with your few easy question, except you conveniently left one out. Anyone Gain territory - No (though Canada and the UK weren't looking for any). One side expend large amounts of money - No Casualties lesser or greater - No Goals of each side Achieved - Yes - UK goal achieved. No - US Both goals not acheived.

Is my point getting through yet?

Sovereign violates? Do you mean impressing US citizens to work in the British Navy?

As for stopping the British from arming the Natives so they could stop the US invasion of their territory, I didn't think that was a goal, at least not a major one. Deathlibrarian

The british were arming the natives before the War. Lets review British stopped soverignty violations, yes impressing U.S. citizen into service & capturing U.S. merchant ships is a violation, the Indians(natives) were no longer being armed by the British, which was a major cause of the war. However the U.S. did fail in expanding into the British Territory, which we presently know as Canada. You keep refering to canada as a seperate entity from the British they were one in the same, ruled by the same government. --Kev62nesl 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, Isn't Dabbler a canadian? So wouldn't he have a canadain view point?--Kev62nesl 08:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you need to check your facts. The British stopped impressing US citizens into the US navy before the war started, so it was *not* some feat achieved by the war. In fact, they did not agree to stop their policy of impressment...they simply had no need as they were downsizing the British Navy after the defeat of Napoleon.

The Brits cancelled the Orders in Council (that which caused the stopping of ships during a state of war with Bonaparte) 2 days before the USA declared war....even after learning of this cancellation and the fact that UK Parliament had bowed to US pressure, the USA did not cancel it's own declaration but rather continued with the war. Hmmm why do you think?

Canada at the time was a colony of the UK, the term Canada had been used to refer to this area long before the war of 1812. It was culturally, separate with the same Queen and Parliament. Canada also had its own militia, who fought alongside British regulars.

I believe the Brits tried to stop the Natives from attacking the Americans after the war. Not sure about the motivation, and not sure if it was because of the war, or they just wanted to stop further bloodshed.

If Dabler is Canadian, I don't know why he isn't arguing that Canada won the war. I certainly would be If I was.211.28.215.155 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dabbler has a Canadian passport, but he doesn't let that blind him to some of the facts of history and assert the claims of his country that did not exist at the time. He also has read quite few histories ofthe period and drawn his conclusions from that. Dabbler 11:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you lose when your oppenennt agrees to a stalemate? oh wait for it, It can't.--Kev62nesl 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

You mean how like the US agreed to a stalemate in the Korean war? And how that was a US Victory? Dunno Kev62, You tell me? You see guys, where the US repels an invasion by someone else, and the status Quo is once again achieved its a US victory. But when the Canada repels a belligerent US and the status quo is achieved...its a stalemate? 211.28.215.155 12:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dabbler, certainly the Brits and Canada may have lucked out on land negotiations because they didn't want to go to war with the US, over the 19th century. However, there would have been many factors that came to play with that, like an ever expanding US military, greater US ecomonic power, greater respect for the US in global quarters, that may also influenced it.To say that Britain and Canada continuosly gave in on negotiations with the US over the next 100 years because of the awful lessons they learnt in 1812 (whatever that might be) is conjecture. 211.28.215.155 12:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Korea is an irrelevance and any statement of victory or loss may be incorrect too. However, the Treaty of Ghent laid down that both sides returned to the status quo ante bellum. That is a fact that we can all agree on, I hope? Stating it was a British or "Canadian" victory is an opinion which is disputed here. Stating it was an American victory, which I did to show that there is an opposite argument which is equally invalid, is also an opinion. Wikipedia should stick to facts not opinions. The fact is status quo ante bellum. Quod erat demonstrandum. Dabbler 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I aggree with Dabbler. The outcome of the war was the Treaty of Ghent. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

While I personally think it was a British/Canadian victory (yes there was a Canada at the time, Lower & Upper with the same Governor General), AFAIK no reputable historian, not even the Canadian nationalist Pierre Berton, makes that claim. It's not up to us to decide on whose victory it was, but to report on what reliable sources say. So it's a draw or stalemate. At best we might report that some historians claim it was a British victory, if they can be found, but that the majority state it was a stalemate or a draw. Luigizanasi 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dabler is exactly correct and I am in alignment with Luigizansi's comments as well. Without a reliable source, to say that one side or another "won" this war is an opinion and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on original research. I would add that newcomers to this discussion might wish to consult the archives for this page, where the subject has been discussed, at length, and resolved by consensus. Sunray 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should stick to the facts, and putting the treaty result in the results is flawed. Treaties and win/loss results of a war are separate concepts. Win loss results should be based in objectives achieved, not on what a treaty decided. This is normally how Wikipedia treats these things, and there is not need for a pro US deviation here.

As I have stated before, the treaty after the Korean war returned it to the status Quo as well. However, as the US had repelled an invading aggressor in that war, and pushed them back to the status quo...it was a strategic victory for the US. The Wikipedia entry for the Korean War does refers to a strategic victory, not to a treaty.

Hyprocritically, Canada has repelled an invading force back to their original border, and this is somehow different? The historic facts are that the invasion of Canada failed, and this is ignored in the results. This shows a clear bias in this article. If we disagree in the results, then it should be indicated.

I agree that most historians see this as a stalemate, however, increasingly a lot of readers and historians (including John Eisenhower) see this as the US army's first loss. Historical viewpoints change. The US army failed in their attempt to take Canada, the British army not only pushed them out, but burnt Washington, captured a number of cities, and only left US soil when the treaty was signed.Deathlibrarian 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions of which side won or lost the most in a war that did not have a decisive outcome are interpretations. The bare facts are what is in the treaty. Any other attributions in the article of winning or losing (or degrees thereof) should be based on how other reputable sources have described the outcome -- analyzing the facts amongst ourselves and coming up with our own conclusions is Original Research. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is the list of "goals" given. Hardly anyone fights a war from start to finish (and beyond) with a set list of unchanging goals, the war aims evolve as the war goes on and are adapted to circumstances. The British may have started out with a goal of resisting American invasion on the Niagara frontier, later they tried to annex a bit of Maine but gave it back because of the treaty. Was that a failed goal resulting in the war being a loss? No, they probably didn't start off trying to annex territory but when the opportunity arrived they took it and if the treaty had not said give it back they would have tried to hold it. Does that mean that they failed in one of their "goals" of the war and therefore it was a defeat? Generally, the consensus of external historians is currently that the war was a stalemate and we must report that as the result. If there are new interpretations of the result, then we can ALSO report that but until the new interpretation becomes the consensus of external historians, we cannot say that it WAS the result. Dabbler 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that both sides lost. There were losses of lives and treasure aplenty, at a time when none of the participants could afford to squander them. There were some intangibles to offset the physical losses, and I would have to mark out the extraordinary performance of the US Navy as a positive for the US. At that stage the Royal Navy was the leading maritime power by a long way, and for the Americans to inflict a series of defeats in single ship actions must have been humiliating indeed for the RN. The US should be rightly proud of their naval heroes. But, by and large, neither side could really claim to have even held their ground. They both went backwards in real terms. --Jumbo 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as we rely on the work of external historians to discuss the War, so can we rely on their commentary as to what the goals of both sides. The facts of history, as commentated on by historians have previously highlighted what the goals of the war were, from both sides. While there may have been some deviation from the goals during the progress of the war, you would have to be blind not to see that the major goals were not achieved on the US side, and were achieved by the other. Introducing spurious and/or minor goals just distracts the major facts.211.28.215.155 02:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I could argue that Britain lost when the United States declared war, the last thing the British wanted was another war when they were fighting Napoleon. However, it looks like its a stalemate, according to all the opinions here (notice opinions); one side won, the other side won, both sides won and neither side won. Dabbler 03:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No idea what your logic for the "Britain lost when the United States declared war" supposition is. They certainly didn't want another front, but how this equates to them losing the war? Particularly when the US invasion effort evolved into such a little threat...it was supported by barely trained militia that didn't see it as their duty to cross the border, and New England was so unhappy about the war they threatened to secede. Most opinions on here seem to say that it was a stalemate, indeed. I however have seen a number of healthy discussion on Usernets where people, 200 years after the war, are still trying to fathom how it is a stalemate when Britain and Canada...owned! Also most opinions on here are coming from the US viewpoint.Anyway, it appears this discussion will go on forever, so..I think I'll wander off and do a website on this211.28.215.155 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To go a bit afield on this, who won the Franco-Dutch War? The initial French objectives were similar to the American objectives in 1812 - to conquer the United Provinces, more or less. The French indisputably failed in this goal, due to the fact that a bunch of other powers (notably Brandenburg and the two Habsburg powers) came to the aid of the Dutch and saved them from destruction. But at that point Louis changed his objectives to "breaking up the coalition against me and annexing as much land from the Spanish as I can." He was wildly successful in these later goals, more or less. The fact that his objectives changed, means that it's rather impossible to say if France "won" or "lost" the war. I think this applies even more strongly to the War of 1812, because in that conflict neither side had very clear goals to begin with. Was the war really an aggressive expansionist effort by the US, like the Mexican War? I think it's hard to justify this. Certainly there were American politicians who wanted to conquer stuff in Canada. But it's pretty difficult to say the Madison administration pursued this as a consistent goal of American policy. Was the British goal to defend Canada? Certainly in part, but they also at times had much grander goals of conquest of territory from the United States, control of the Great Lakes, possibly more. And how about that naval war? The United States certainly outperformed expectations, but it made no progress on its central naval goal of preventing impressment, and this issue was completely ignored by the peace treaty. I think the basic fact of the War of 1812 is that neither side had any real goals - the British were mostly focused on the war in Europe, and didn't think of the war in North America as anything but a sideshow, while the American administration was dragged into a war it hadn't prepared for by the warhawks, and was basically incapable of pursuing any coherent goals. Referring to the war as a British victory would endorse the view that the war was "really" about Canada, and that it was a simple case of thwarted aggression by the United States. I don't think this is a justifiable gloss of the war. john k 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Please don't feed the trolls!

Worldwide war at sea

If there were battles between US Navy ships and Royal Navy ships, does that not imply that the war was actually being fought in a particular location? So if there were battles between the USN and the RN in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans where the ships fought and sunk or captured each other then I believe that there was warfare going on. I think that having warfare on at least three widely spread out places in the owrld justified the term worldwide. I cannot understand your reasoning for deleting the term. Please respond here instead to justify deleting my term. Dabbler 01:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries are often insufficient for explaining rationale for edits. I was wrong to imply that there wasn't warfare going on in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. What I didn't say was that this information doesn't belong in the lead as it is not central to the story of the war. The lead is intended to be a succinct overview. "At sea" describes the war in general terms. Later in the body text, it would be most appropriate to talk about the operations on the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Sunray 06:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

British/Canadian Victory

Of course, wikipedia is systemically biased in favour of American propaganda history by virtue of the fact that the vast bulk of editors and contributors are American, and have wrought their patriotic doublethink on most military history subjects. However, it seems to me particularly brazen for Americans to claim as a "draw" (or sometimes, incredibly, a victory) a conflict in which none of their war aims were realised, and which hilariously resulted in the burning and sacking of the capital city of the USA. The attempt to invade Canada was wholly repulsed; the effort to assert US paramountcy in the Atlantic failed; the territorial integrity of the USA was not defended from counter-attack; Britain was not prevented from fighting two wars on two fronts simultaneously. However, American myth-history has inflated one successful but insignificant frigate duel into a story of military genius and triumph. Following the logic of the 'debate' surrounding the outcome of the War of 1812 one might as well claim that Vietnam was a "draw", if not a total victory! The fact of the matter is that the USA actually has a very limited history of military success, but because of American's massive insecurity complex about the cultural desert that is their 15-minute-long history they have to lie and exaggerate about every aspect of their past. Hence the endless hollywood movies portraying Brave American Heroes throwing out the tyrannical British (The Patriot), overthrowing slavery (Glory), winning WWII single-handedly (U-571, Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor etc etc.), winning Vietnam (Rambo), winning Somalia (Blackhawk down), and on and on and on. Whereas when you look at it, America has been involved in relatively few conflicts, and has succeeded in a minority of them. Here's American military history in ten easy steps: (1) The Revolutionary War was fought and won by the French, (2) The Civil War - well, that's against themselves so they couldn't really manage to lose, (3) WWI where contrary to American belief they played no role at all until the last 10 minutes of conflict and even then were armed entirely with French and British weapons, (4) WWII where America lost no lives at all and bore the lightest burden of fighting of any of the combatant nations after having cravenly held back from the war until it was already clear which side would win, (5) Korea, where a "victory" meant getting right back to where you started, (6) Vietnam, the only war that the Americans ever admit to "drawing", (7) Every intervention in Granada, Somalia, Kosovo, Iran-Hostage Crisis etc. etc. - all screwed up by hayseed incompetent hick American troops, (8) Gulf War I, great way to get all the indigenous anti-Hussein faction killed, (9) Afghanistan 2001 - most Americans actually think that this ineffectual assault was a victory!, (10) Iraq 2003-present - do I need to say any more? --Corinthian 13:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You purport to be against revisionist history while claiming that the US "lost no lives at all" in WWII. No, you don't need to say any more. --Noren 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A figure of speech, not literally. The USA casualties figure of approx 400,000 dead is insignificant compared to those of the USSR, Germany, Japan and Britain. The blood-price paid by the USA - the only beneficiary of ww2 - to gain total global predominance in the aftermath of the war was minimal. A result owing entirely to the cynical and repugnant policy of selfish american isolationism calculated to ensure maximum european casualties in order to clear the field for post-war hegemony. Yet americans have the temerity to assert that they "saved" europeans in a moral war. --Corinthian 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that I'm jumping into an old discussion here but I really must point out that the claim that the United States losses in World War Two were "insignificant" is a) false and b) doubly false when it's suggested that they were insignificant compared to those of Great Britain. American military losses in the Second World War exceed those of Great Britain, in spite of the fact that the United States fought for 29 months less than Britain. My source for this is the Oxford Companion to the Second World War. The claim that American isolationism was "calculated" to ensure maximum European casualties is also plainly false, and moreover many millions of Americans opposed isolationism. Finally, may I point out that the United States army went into sustained action in World War Two in mid-1942. By contrast, the Second World War was nearly four years old before the Canadian army went into sustained action in the summer of 1943 in Sicily, and half of the Canadian army never left Canada during WWII. Sometimes my fellow Canadians are appalling sanctimonious about such matters. Why they claim the War of 1812 as their own is beyond me. The only people in BNA in 1812 who thought of themselves as Canadians were French-speaking denizens of Upper Canada. --Ggbroad 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree Corinthian. I have spent hours on here trying to point out the Pro US spin that makes this a draw, rather than a loss. I'm not quite sure what the US has to do to acutally lose a war: an unsuccessful attempt at an invasion, getting their Capital burnt down, and then having the British army wander around the country at will unchecked and then leaving of its own accord obviously isn't enough.Deathlibrarian 03:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, if you bring in enough spurious factors, you can say anything. Timber, The Brits real goal of taking Maine, American indians, treaty signing, what Wellington said, The Amazing battle of New Orleans (!!)...if you bring in enough non core issues....You can add on as many factors as you want....and revise history to the point where you can say anything. If, however, you stick to what the US really, actually wanted to do....invade Canada..and what the British wanted to do...kick them out and teach them a lesson...guess what? The US lost!Deathlibrarian 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to Bash the U.S. can you please stick with the proper subject, this is not a discussion of U.S. wars, It is a discussion of the war of 1812. Your hatred of the U.S. should be in some other article. Oh and as for a U.S. loss. Mull this over. After a defeat in a War a country is suppose to lose infleunce in world affairs, ever since the War of 1812 the U.S. has gained infleunce in world affairs. Goal Achieved. Oh and by the way when you agree to a stalemate, by definition it is therefore a stalemate. --Kev62nesl 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please! Restarting hostilities is not the answer. This is a historical article, and it is not up to we editors to determine whether one side beat the other. Or not. --Jumbo 05:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to bash the US, I'm quite a fan, but I believe in representing history without spin doctoring.

Kev...more spurious factors that have nothing to do with the US loss of the war of 1812. The US gained influence in world affairs and became a great nation because of the cotton industry, trade, massive immigration, slave labour and the development of modern industry (amongst other things)......not because they lost a war in 1812 to the British! And BTW, the British never agreed to a stalemate, they signed a treaty to re establish the borders before the war, as the US, the UN and the Koreas did in The Korean War. This does not mean they lost the war...its completely different. You agree to a stalemate in chess...not after a war.211.28.215.155 10:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The result was "status quo ante bellum" If you want to use that instead of "stalemate" I can agree. But to declare it a victory for either side because some assumed "goals" (in which documents were these goals written down?) is not appropriate. Neither is the blatant and in some cases completely false abuse above. The Americans won not one insignificant frigate action but almost all the single-ship actions. Macedonian, lost, Guerriere lost, Java lost, Chesapeake lost.

There were no reparations paid by the losers to the victors, no territory ceded by the losers to the victors, both sides suffered considerable damage to life and property and if one had been a clear cut victor you can be damn sure that as in other wars of the time both reparations and/or territory would have been demanded. Both basically agreed to cease hostilities. A stalemate in many people's eyes because it wasn't worth fighting any longer with no certain belief in an eventual victory. Dabbler 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The treaty was "status quo ante bellum". This is different to saying who was the victor, and of course covers up the fact that the US lost the war. Whie achieving some naval successes, militarily, the US were beaten decisively, and had a belligerent British force roaming their countryside that they could not defeat before the end of the war.

As for the "eventual Victory"..the British did not need to to fight anymore because they had acheived theirs. They had defeated the invasion of Canada, burnt the US capital, removed the US threat. Threaty signed, victory achieved and mission accomplished, they ceased hostilities, hopped on their ships and went home.Deathlibrarian 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And which British army was roaming around American soil? The one we defeated at Baltimore? The one we defeated at New Orleans? The one we bloodied in the Niagara campaign? All the major British successes were in 1812 and 1814.

By 1814, we were holding our own against all the British armies. Yes, Washington was burned, but Baltimore, the real strategic objective of a Chesapeake campaign, held and General Ross was killed at North Point. And Chippawa and Fort Erie--even Lundy's Lane--and the naval victories on Champlain and Erie, guaranteed there would be no counter-invasion from the North. Once we controlled the Lakes, Wellington advised against attacks from Canada. The Americans won more battles than the Canadians believe they did. -- GABaker 0203 15 June 2006.

There is no need for ignorant personalization of this discussion by both sides. I am a Canadian who accepts the stalemate verdict and none of us were around at the time to claim WE won. For many of us our ancestors weren't living in either country at the time. This discussion is rather and silly and futile because hardly anyone is even attempting to see the other side's point of view, people are just shouting their own louder and more rudely. Its a stalemate, just like the war itself! Dabbler 03:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Which British army was roaming around American Soil? The British army, after suffering losses at New Orleans, but still quite large, defeated the US troops at Fort Boyer, and its fleet controlled Mobile bay. They were conisdering further offensive action when news that the treaty had been signed reached them by dispatch ship, so they went home. Certainly the US won some battles, but overall, the US militia's and small regular army performed poorly against the British Regulars and their indian allies. And with more regular troops arriving after the defeat of Napoleon, it wasn't going to get better.Deathlibrarian 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest for Pete's sake! This isn't a blog. Sunray 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Too right! May I suggest an outlet for this, because there are some good points being raised. Results of the War of 1812 is far more appropriate an article for this sort of discussion. This article is for the war itself, and while the outcome is important, it's not the focus of the article. Talking about who won/lost/drew is like squabbling over the will instead of writing the biography. --Jumbo 06:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To make the case that the war was any kind of British victory, you have to a) claim that the only significant American objective was the conquest of Canada, and that this objective was pursued in a consistent way; and b) claim that the only significant British goal was to defend Canada, and that the burning of Washington was something other than a successful raid (well, a partially successful raid, what with the whole "not taking Baltimore" part of it. I think both of these claims are highly dubious. Referring to the war as a "British victory" is highly POV and deeply dubious, and we shouldn't go on about it any more. john k 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares?

To say this was anything other than an embarrassing defeat for the US is totally ridiculous. All the debatable gains they were supposed to have made are of minor significance compared to the clear attempt at removing the British army from the North American continent, which subsequently failed with disasterous consequences for their own country.

Supposing the British had invaded the US and had finished the war the US army having torched London - would that be considered a "stalemate"? Absurd. We would never hear the end of it. Simon Horrocks

Absolutely. The British army weren't even driven from US soil, they left of their own accord when ordered too. I'm not quite sure what it takes for the US to actually lose a war. This article, until it reads "US loss of objective" is completely pro American biased.Deathlibrarian

Title

Leaving aside for a moment the great debate about who won, I'm somewhat bemused by the claim in the openning sentence that in Britain it is referred to as "the American War of 1812 to 1815". I'm British. I've never heard the war referred to by this title. Given that the war went on for 3 years, the title "The War of 1812" is rather an odd one, but as far as I know that's also what it's known as in the UK. Or I may just be a victim of "American propaganda history". Paul B 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Single-ship duels

I have removed from the section on "Effects on Great Britain", an explanation for the American victories in single-ship duels that these were, "mostly due to the superior size and build quality of the American ships"

In the case of the three big American frigates, this was probably the cause. In about a dozen clashes between smaller vessels (American sloops or brigs versus British ships of about the same size), the Americans won eight or nine victories to the British one. In most of these, the ships were almost the same tonnage and strength (in number and weight of guns). The Americans sometimes had a slightly larger crew, though not enough to confer any decisive advantage.

It is clear that size or construction played little part. Sometimes the British ships fought bravely, even desperately, but once or twice they flinched. In some battles, the British gunners managed to miss with almost every shot, while the American guns were devastatingly accurate.

The most probable cause is that the Americans had handpicked and experienced crews, while the Royal Navy was overstretched with the Napoleonic and American wars, and had to make do with a lower quality; sometimes made worse by lack of practice. Roosevelt, The Naval War of 1812, ISBN 0375754199, is probably the most authoritative work, though not very readable; C.S. Forester, The Age of Fighting Sail, ISBN 0939218062 draws largely on Roosevelt for data but is easier to read. HLGallon 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

POV in the info box

After a lot of discussion and editing we had setteld for quite a while on the formula for the origins as shown. Then it is unilaterally changed to state border disputes instead of American expansionism. If that is to be the case, then we should reword the the British side to American objections top pressing of British sailors from their ships and searching of American ships for banned trade with British enemies. The expansionism was well documented and is not in my opinion POV "Border disputes is massively POV in trying to exculpate the aggressor. The British were not disputing the border, the Americans were trying to erase it. Dabbler 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To Dabbler- Thanks for doing some digging! The second of your two references supports your claim, the first does not, so I'm removing it putting it in the External Links section. I can live with the article as it is now. But if you read the first of the two references, I can't see how you can conclude that American "expansionism" is a coequal cause with British violations. I'll try to address this later, when I have more time. For now, as I said, I can live with the article. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 21:35 (UTC)

From the first reference: "Earlier historians (in the 1920's) placed primary blame on territorial expansionism for causing the war. More recent studies discount its importance but we need to look at it.

The primary cause for the call to invade Canada was the obvious support the British in Canada were giving the Indians of the Northwest. The Americans did not miss that Canada was Britain's last foothold on the continent either. Southerners openly discussed annexing the Spanish claims in Florida because of Spain's alliance with Britain. As relations with Britain worsened the call for expansion both north and south increased in volume and frequency.20" (My emphasis). I don't claim that it was the primary cause but it was not negligible. Dabbler 22:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with you. I'm going to revert it. I was the user who put "American expansionism" in the infobox, and it certainly didn't warrant being turned into "border disputes" (yet again, I've already had to revert it once). I think this article may need protection to stop it becoming too pro-American (Hollywood History). NJW494 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult, but because of a misplaced quotation mark and a few other infelicities, I'm not sure what you're saying.

In any event, there are two issues here, as I see it: 1) the use of the term "expansionism," and 2) the question of British violations of American sovereignty (and related failures to adhere to the Treaty of Paris. The problem with "expansionism" is that it generally means a desire to expand militarily. There is nothing even approaching consensus about the extent to which the U.S. was expansionist in that sense during that period, but, far more importantly, there is no consensus that that is a significant cause of the War of 1812. As for British violations of American sovereignty, that is a fairly clear-cut case, as the rest of the article (to which no one here so far as objected) makes clear.

I think the way the article is now is extremely balanced. By the way, insulting references to "Hollywood History" are not likely to advance this discussion. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 15:41 (UTC)

Expansionism in this case meant the conquest of Canada, something that was a varifiable aim of the Americans in the War of 1812, and was certainly at least (if not more) important than the "violations of American sovereignty". Therefore the info box shows that both sides were to blame for the war, rather than making it seem like a "just war" from the American standpoint. Regards. NJW494 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, kiddo. You wrote: ".... certainly at least (if not more) important than the "violations of American sovereignty." where did you get that? --WikiFair1 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that, too. NJW494? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 21:33 (UTC)

Do not revert without allowing the discussion to continue a bit. That's considered bad behavior on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 15:41 (UTC)

In order to restore the neutrality of the article the changes had to be made. If someone wishes to argue for the use of the term "border disputes" let them do so. As things stand, the article has simply been restored to its previous state before it was altered by a pro-American source. Regards. NJW494 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so it was Cultural Freedom that reverted my original edits without discussion. kiddo, please try and practise what you preach. The edits had originally been made by some biased American fellow, and I'd altered them back to the way they were before. Regards. NJW494 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no neutrality in the article, as I see it. By the way, you need to go back further in the history of the article. It has been changed many times by USA-haters, and many times by "pro-American" sources. Please read what I wrote above. There are several issues involved here. Thanks in advance for your serious engagement in this matter. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 15:41 (UTC)

I don't understand what's so wrong with "border disputes". Let's look at part of the Treaty of Ghent. http://warof1812.casebook.org/documents/text.html?id=84dcb6162349899b798951bc3d6ede4c

"The said Commissioners shall have power to ascertain and determine the points above mentioned in conformity with the provisions of the said Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three, and shall cause the boundary aforesaid from the source of the River St Croix to the River Iroquois or Cataraquy to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration under their hands and seals certifying it to be the true Map of the said boundary; and particularizing the latitude and longitude of the North West Angle of Nova Scotia, of the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally and conclusively fixing the said boundary."

About half of the treaty is about the border. If the border was so clear before the war, why was all this necessary? Isn't it fair to say that the border was disputed?

If we have to use the word "expansionism", why don't we point fingers at the government in London trying to build an empire in North America? The local, democratically elected gov't had a much more legitimate claim than the Prince of Wales did.

Haber 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the border and dispute resolution mechanisms were so prominent is because the British were trying to prevent future American attempts to take over their North American colonies, the people of those territories controlled by the British fought vigorously to avoid being taken over much to the surprise of the foreign American government. Shouldn't have been so surprising, many of them had been refugees from the victorious rebels of an earlier war. Shouldn't a people's right to self determination count for anything? Dabbler 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So in your version of history, these self-determining "colonies" requested that the Royal Navy interdict American shipping, giving their aggressive neighbor an excuse to start a war. It was in their own self-interest that France be blockaded, so much so that they would voluntarily forgo trading with anyone but the UK. They preferred alliances with the Native Americans over their former friends and blood relatives to the south. Many of them, including the French-speakers, wanted a British win so badly that they would risk economic ruin and invasion of their homes. Then these selfless Canadians, many whose livelihoods depended on fishing, asked that fishing rights be given to the Americans, and that the border be defined in meticulous detail to prevent the Americans from annexing their entire country. Then they strike up a nearly 200 year friendship with their ruthless neighbor to the south, but accidentally rebel against their own beloved imperial system in 1837. What strange people. Haber 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You can draw all sorts of stupid conclusions if you want to but it won't be any closer to truth of what I believe. If you look at other entries here, you will see that I have fought just as hard to prevent POV-pushers from stating that it was a British-Canadian victory. I am interested in trying to get as close to the historical truth as possible not push my POV. Dabbler 11:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"If we have to use the word 'expansionism', why don't we point fingers at the government in London trying to build an empire in North America?" Agree completely. If the word "expansionism" is used to describe one of the causes of the war, then we also should mention British imperialism. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-13 07:31 (UTC)

Apart from British support for the Native people which has already been mentioned in the article, there is no evidence that British "imperialism" had any influence on the War Hawks' push for an expansion of the United States to incorporate those colonists who did not want to bepart of the US. Its this sort of nonsense that makes me despair of Wikipedia sometimes. POV-pushing will destroy this project. Dabbler 11:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. (Calling other people's views "nonsense" is unlikely to help ease the general strife that exists on WP; though I've engaged in similar mud-slinging in the past, I'll confess. Hard to resist sometimes.) About POV-pushing: from my perspective, most contributions from the British involve a grotesque white-washing of British colonial brutality. Take a look at some of the early versions of the article on the Mau Mau Rebellion, for example. In any event, I think Wikipedia was badly named. It's an experiment in mostly anarchic, global, collective blogging. As that, it's fascinating. As an encylopedia, it's so far a failure when it comes to most articles about history and politics. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-13 12:33 (UTC)

"You're POV-pushing! You're ruining Wikipedia!" ... bah. Haber 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansionism clearly applies to the US military expansion into Native Indian territory here, as well as trying to grab Canadian territory. British Colonialism may have been rife in other parts of the world (Mau,mau, India, Australia) but not in North America in the context of the War of 1812. There is a reason Native Americans fled to Canada...and its not because the Brits were evil expansionists! Its a shame that Expansionism at the expense of the Native Americans cannot be mentioned here, but that's what you get when you have a US bias in Wikipedia (coming from an Aussie).Deathlibrarian 07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whats all this talk of no side had a balance of anything, I may not be a mathematician, but 5000 British casulties to over 24,000 American casulties is a balance of something.

Shhhh dude...don't mention that the US lost 5 times as many troops as the brits. Someone may work out that the US lost the war! Deathlibrarian 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the "17 000 other deaths" in the info box refering to? deaths due to disease, weather and accedents while on campaingn? I think that statement needs some context and varification. Also, I porposed a rework of the info box below, does that help address some of the concerns at all? Mike McGregor (Can) 18:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate article?

I've just run across War of 1812 Campaigns, which is probably redundant with this article and to a lesser extent with Chronology of the War of 1812. I've marked it for merging, but someone here might want to take a look at it. Shimgray | talk | 10:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

infobox rework?

War of 1812
The Battle of Queenston Heights by James B. Dennis depicts the unsuccessful American landing on October 13, 1812.
Date June 4, 1812- Febuary 13, 1815 Location Eastern and Central North America, Gulf Coast, Atlantic and Pacific oceans Result status quo ante bellum
Belligerents
United States Indigenous peoples	United Kingdom Canadian colonial forces Indigenous peoples
Commanders and leaders
Andrew Jackson Winfield Scott	George Prevost †Tecumseh
Strength
U.S. Army: 35,800 Rangers: 3,049 Militia: 458,463 US Marines: ? US Navy: ? Indigenous peoples: ?	British and Provincial Regulars: 48,163 Militia: 4,000 Royal Naval and Marines: ? Provincial Marine: ? Indigenous peoples: 3,500
Casualties and losses
Killed: 2,260 Wounded: 4,505 Disease and other: ? Civilian: ?	Killed: ? Wounded: ? Disease and other: ? Civilian: ?
notes

I personally think the info box could use a rework for consistancy-sake. I put together a proposal here. the current version is at the top and my proposal is at the bottem. I've broken down the force strengths and casualties diffrently. for force strengths, I suggest using peak strengths for each category over the course of the war. please comment on the talk page there to suggest improvements and I'll bring it back here for approval or rejection. Mike McGregor (Can) 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a proposal for reorginizing the info box, what do folks think? If people could drop suggestions here on on the talk page here: User talk:Mike McGregor (Can)/1812 infobox. Mike McGregor (Can) 16:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone care if I replace the current infobox in the article with the one here? can anyone help fill in the figures?Mike McGregor (Can) 00:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be objections to the proposal, so I decided to "Be bold" and take that as a silent agreement. There is still info that needs to be plugged into the new box, and any help would be appreciated. If there are objections, the orriginal info box can easily be put back up... the code from the old box is here. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Stable versioning tested on this article.

Stable versioning is being tested on this article. This means that all editing will be made on War of 1812/development, and on a regular basis, good edits will be moved onto the consensus page. If you disagree with the current version, please let me know. Ral315 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian civilians?

Shouldn't the British deaths be built upon more? As it is now the US has numbers for how many died quite well detailed. For Britain though its just a basic number of killed and wounded making no distinction between civilian and military- to be neutral should there not be mention of the Canadian civilians killed since there is mention of the US citizens?--Josquius 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's part of what I'm hoping to address with the info box changes I've proposed. Is the break-down of casualties there more along the lines of what you'd liek to see? Mike McGregor (Can) 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Results info box

The "treaty of Ghent" is not standard for the result for the info box. Standard entries here are win or loose...or strategic victory, tactical loss etc. Putting the phrase "treaty of Ghent" here is meaninless to anyone trying to get a quick snapshot of the war of 1812 by looking at the infobox.

Threaty of Ghent is a treaty that ended the hostilities, signed by the US and the UK...its not a "result" as is the norm for the infobox. I vote it be taken out. Deathlibrarian 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, make it Status quo ante, which is substantially correct. Septentrionalis 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the consensus reached in the past until the latest Canada/USA pissing contest started. Should be Status quo ante bellum so it doesn't go to a disambiguation page. We should also have a note as a comment telling people to review the discussions on this talk page before they change it. Luigizanasi 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with either status quo ante bellum or Treaty of Ghent. Some moose-lovers out there don't like either. Unless you want to discuss round n+1, I say leave it the way it is. Haber 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what happens with status quo; since the Canadian argument is that this was a win for Britain, it may be acceptable as a statement of fact. Septentrionalis 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Status Quo seems to be a nice way of saying the US invasion didn't work!!!! I'm assuming you should make some reference to the US invasion being repulsed here? I think this should be changes to tactical loss US, as it did not achieve its objectives Deathlibrarian 08:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been made as many times as there have been editors to this article. On a level, I agree with you, but there is no chance of getting this changed and it is a battle that ought not to be fought again. Lord Bob 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

While this point has been debated, I think that putting something that is blatently misleading, just for the sake of avoiding an argument is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, or good historical practice. The Vulcan/logical part of my brain is saying this doesn't make any sense...Status Quo definitley is biased towards the US as it doesn't indicate the invasion of the US failed. Something like US invasion repulsed - Status Quo may be better. I say tactical loss for US....or put some dispute notice if a decision can't be come too. Deathlibrarian 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the Americans beat back British attempts at invasion in late 1814 at the Battle of Baltimore and the Battle of Plattsburgh (and at the irrelevant Battle of New Orleans). The main article should talk about them too. Status quo ante bellum is as good a description as any. Luigizanasi 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh...no. The Brits successfully invaded the US. The British army crossed the border, though they unsuccessfully attacked a number of towns, they stayed in the US and then only left of their own accord after they learnt that the treaty signed was in 1814. The last battle of the War of 1812, after Battle of New Orleans, was actually won by the British army The battle of Fort Bowyer. The British were being reinforced, and were preparing to move against Mobile, in Oklahoma when they learnt of peace and so sailed back to the UK. Of course, this is beside the point. The whole point of the war was that the US was trying to invade canada...they did not and the fact that we have "status quo" as a result doesn't represent the fact that the US invasion of Canada failed..and thus Canada is an independant country today :-) 211.28.215.155 09:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yeah...I'm pretty sure that we already did this discussion, but whatever. Look the reason that it is listed as Status Quo anti bellum is because that was the result. Niether side's boundary's changed from their boundary's prewar location. And as for the political results of the War, the British Empire was able to keep its control over Canada, and the United States was able to assert its sovernty. Both sides got what they wanted from the war. I dont see any gains or losses on either side that could justify a change from the current end result:Status quo anti bellum. Also does anyone else think that the picture in the box could be a lot better than the one that is featured, there are much better pictures to represent the war, and even to represent the battle of Queenstown Heights.Lucas(CA)

I think it's a pretty picture. It does say something about the poster's psyche that they're more interested in the unsuccessful American action than in anything positive. I'm going to change the caption. Haber 11:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

actually I just did a cut and past of the caption from the Battle of Queenston Heights article. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine if you just cut and pasted the picture and caption, but there are better images to encapsulate the war, and we should find one. Lucas(CA)

looking for info on Port Dover raid

Can any one point me towards some sources on the American Raid on Port Dover and surrounding area? Thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

POV and Operations on the Oceans

While generally I think this is a very good article and does well to avoid POV, I do think it slips up in the 'Operations on the Oceans' section. Rather a lot of it seems to be devoted to the (certainly impressive) American ship-to-ship victories (and, where the British win, in praising American courage or exculpating the loss - at one point an American privateer who is captured is praised for his 'audacity'). There's no indication that any of these fine victories were militarily or strategically significant. The purpose of a Navy is to defend the home coast, attack the enemy's and control the sea lanes. The US Navy failed in virtually every way. This may be understandable, given the numerical superiority of the RN, but it's still true. Concentrating on some individual victories is a bit like writing an article on the Western Front and devoting half of it to Arnhem and the Bulge. ~~TMR~~ 4 Sep. 2006

Have a go at changing it then. NJW494 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Who went First?? - The "Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, 1812" section

I noticed there seems to be some attempt to make out that the British Invaded the US First. William Hull invaded Canada on July 12, and the British took Fort Mackinack 5 days later. Both actions apparently before the formal declaration of war on July 18???? I have corrected the "Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, 1812" that seemed to indicate the Brits moving first. Also refering to "both sides invading" seems a bit ludicrous. The US force under William HUll was a true invasion force, the Brits taking a border fort with a small "scratch force" hardly counts as an invasion.Deathlibrarian 05:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some dates - but there was a sea battle even before that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Operations_on_the_oceans --JimWae 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC) also http://members.tripod.com/war1812/

Are you referring to a British force chasing the USS Chesapeake on July 17?. Thats after Hull invaded Canada. Deathlibrarian 10:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Belvidera - http://members.tripod.com/war1812/pvsb.html --JimWae 14:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The invasion of Fort Mackinac was a real invasion - the fact that only a few men were used was because only a few men were needed, not because Mackinac was a minor target. It was a significant holdfast in the Great Lakes, and the Americans spent no little effort trying to get it back. Its impact on the war was far more than Hull marching up and down Upper Canada without accomplishing anything until Brock whipped him at Detroit.

We should also note that July 1812 was not the modern world of telephone, Internet, and near-instant communication. Five days was not a long time. It took months for news of the Treaty of Ghent to get to the actual warzone, for instance (ask the participants of the Battle of New Orleans what that meant). Upper Canada was not a well-developed land with good roads and an efficient mail service. If the Americans invaded five days before the British, in the grand scheme of things it was effectively simultaneous. Certainly, the invasion of Mackinac occured independently, and if memory serves they didn't have any idea that Hull had crossed the border.

Finally, I'm somewhat at a loss as to how, as your edit summaries have stated, a simultaneous invasion expresses an American bias. I wasn't aware that initiative and being able to get a quick start in a war declared against you were negative traits these days. Lord Bob 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the *simltaneousness* I was referring to the fact that it had been said the British Invaded, as well as the US. 300 British guys taking a fort is not an invasion. An invasion implies an army subjugating or attempting to take control of a country. You can't do that with 300 British troops (unless they were Gurkhas of course). The obvious events that were happenning at the beginning of the war were the invasion attempts of the US into Canada, trying to justify/hide that by saying..."the British invaded as well" is a nice bit of spin doctoring, IMHO Deathlibrarian 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

An invasion is any armed incursion into hostile territory for the purpose of taking and holding that territory. The British clearly attacked Mackinac with the intention of taking and holding it, and did so. Compared to the Napoleonic Wars on the Continent with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, Hull's 2,500 or so men look punier than 300 men do to Hull. But we don't rename this the Minor border skirmish of 1812-15.

Nobody's trying to justify anything. Nobody's saying that the British taking Mackinac started the war or forced its continuation, and I don't see how that implication could possibly be drawn. I'm a Canadian myself, I differ with 99% of the contributors on this page in that I think Britain won the war (although I've long given up on waging that particular battle), and I'm still of the opinion that when 300 men attack a hostile island of strategic importance, take it, and hold it against attempts to get it back, those 300 men conducted an invasion of no less significance than Hull marching up and down without shooting at anybody. Lord Bob 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We could probably argue all day, depending on how you define "invasion". Certainly most military historians would not regard it as an invasion. Its basically about the size of the group making the incursion. 3 guys crossing the border is not an invasion of a country. Nor is 300. 2,500 could be.

Its also about intent. Whether Hull's troops actually did anything or not is not important. Hulls force was an invasion force, with the *intent* (combined with the other invading armies) to take Canada.The 300 Brit troops had no intent to invade the US, their objective was to take a fort. And Lord Bob, you can see from my other posts, I agree with you, its completely obvious the Brits did win the war of 1812. YOu'd think the British army wandering around the states unchallenged, attacking things at will and then leaving of their own accord would indicate that. And the fact the US acheived none of their objectives...in fact they lost Maine. But most American writers will never agree with you, and they write wikipedia. 203.35.150.226 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hull and Brock

I have added William Hull and Isaac Brock to the list of commanders due to their major roles in the fight for Upper Canada. While Hull's nationality is quite clear, I was unsure whether Brock should be listed as British or Canadian, seeing as like most Canadians then, he was both. I decided, however to mark him as Canadian because most of those he commanded were (or would later become) Canadians. --72.38.120.91 17:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Were there no colonial Canadian flags in that period which could better represent the Canadians?

Brock was British to the core. He didn't even particularly like Canada, was born on a Channel Island, and Canada was but one of many stops during his career. Of all the major generals, the closest one to Canadian was Drummond, because he actually was born Canadian, but even he is rather difficult to categorise.

That said, the whole idea of including lower-tier commanders like Hull and Brock isn't one I'm big on. Certainly, they had a major role during their day at the top, but so did Stephen Van Rensselaer and Roger Sheaffe, to name but two of many. I think we should stick to the old way of just having the top men (Prevost, Armstrong, Madison, et al.) on the table. Lord Bob 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the info box as simple as possible. Maybe Brock and Hull would be better represented in more campaign specific articles... Mike McGregor (Can) 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone have a reference for "American War of 1812 to 1815" being the UK English name for this war? I tried searching Google books to no avail, and a Google search largely brings up Wikipedia mirrors. - FrancisTyers · 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed seeing as no references forthcoming. - FrancisTyers · 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a page at The Royal Naval Museum that refers to it as "the American War of 1812". To quote, "... these limits were often ignored and the impressment of Americans into the British navy became one of the causes of the American War of 1812." It would appear that that nomenclature is currently used in British museums. --Noren 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One reference on one museum site does not make it a significant current usage. The National Maritime Museum web site, for example, has five references to the "War of 1812" and one to the "Anglo-American War of 1812". To me, the implication is that it is usually referred to as the War of 1812 but some writers think it needs disambiguation. Dabbler

That seems fair to me. I don't have a strong opinion on this, and am not trying to make a claim about how common this usage is. I found that reference while looking for impressment information and, well, a reference had been asked for and this seemed the place to mention it. That being said, the sentence quoted above would not appear to require disambiguation. --Noren 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

Zebulin 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Bibliography

It's a good idea to move the long bibliog to its own article War of 1812 Bibliography, where I have now added many new titles. That bibliog is too long for most users. They need a short list of books to find in a local library and therefore I have included a short reading list with this main article. Rjensen 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Now at List of War of 1812 books. John Broughton | Talk 14:20, 8 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)

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)

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.