Eisspeedway

Talk:War of 1812: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dabbler (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
14,343 edits
Explanation
CJK (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
5,569 edits
Line 212: Line 212:
==Lede para and Canada==
==Lede para and Canada==
This section has evolved to discuss modern attitudes to the War rather than constitutional niceties. As a Canadian I can tell you that the Statute of Westminster is totally ignored by the modern Canadian. If asked they would say that Canada began as a nation in 1867 and that this was in part due to the nationalist feelings developed during the War of 1812 and the rebellions of 1837. The First World War is also seen as another important bit of nation building. The Canadian militia is also believed to have been a major part of the British victory (and the militia did participate in the so-called iconic battles named) which is why I would like to see it included in this section. [[User:Dabbler|Dabbler]] ([[User talk:Dabbler|talk]]) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This section has evolved to discuss modern attitudes to the War rather than constitutional niceties. As a Canadian I can tell you that the Statute of Westminster is totally ignored by the modern Canadian. If asked they would say that Canada began as a nation in 1867 and that this was in part due to the nationalist feelings developed during the War of 1812 and the rebellions of 1837. The First World War is also seen as another important bit of nation building. The Canadian militia is also believed to have been a major part of the British victory (and the militia did participate in the so-called iconic battles named) which is why I would like to see it included in this section. [[User:Dabbler|Dabbler]] ([[User talk:Dabbler|talk]]) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

:I'm sorry to sound blunt, but if Canadians don't know their own history that is really not our problem. The 1867 act was created by the British Parliament some 52 years after the war ended. It did not grant Canadians one iota more independence than they had in 1866. Canada automatically entered the First World War in 1914 precisely because it was under British control at that time, a century after the War of 1812 allegedly created nationalist feelings.

:I do not deny the participation of Canadian militia but all the militia was ultimately British just like the militia of New York, Pennsylvania, etc. was American.

:[[User:CJK|CJK]] ([[User talk:CJK|talk]]) 23:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:44, 30 October 2013

Former featured article candidateWar of 1812 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted

This page is for discussions about changes to the article There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to Archives 8 and 9 for the most recent discussions). Historians and the editors have various viewpoints on which side won, or if there was a stalemate. For more information, see the section *Memory and historiography, Historian's views*. However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war."


Please do not use this page to continue the argument that one or the other side "won" unless you are able to present citations from reliable and verifiable sources to support your claims.

If you wish to make a case for who won the war, but do not yet have citations, feel free to do so here: Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?


British invasion of the US repulsed.

Needs to be removed from the Infobox. British Invasion wasn't repulsed...British forces in various parts of the US left of their own accord only after the peace treaty was signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

the main invasions were repulsed -- (Detroit, upstate New York, Baltimore, New Orleans), and by war's end the Brits held only very remote and unsettled areas. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, the US repulsed British invasions at Baltimore, Detroit, and Platsburgh...but not New Orleans. However, the Brits invaded and controlled most of Michigan. They had Eastern Maine, and part of upper New York, their army near New Orleans was still on campaign had just taken Fort Bowyer. They controlled Illinois and Wisconsin. So I would not say *most* of the British invasions of the US were repulsed. In fact, I would say *most of the British invasion forces were still on US soil* and only left when the treaty was signed.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No only small British remnants were left -- and only a few hundred Americans were affected (these were in Maine). Illinois, Michigan & Wisconsin had not been unsettled by Americans (though they were a few French living there). The main British force at New Orleans was as thoroughly "repulsed" as anyone could wish. the British force at Plattsburg fled like cowards, and the invasion force at Baltimore went home when its commander was killed by the Americans and the fleet failed to silence the fortress. Fort Bowyer was Spanish territory. (The US lost two battles there in 1814-15, with about 4 Americans killed in the first battle and one killed in the second.) Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'fled like cowards', what like Americans in almost every battle of the war? 'only small British remnants were left', The same British force that was defeated at New Orleans swiftly moved to capture Fort Bowyer then Mobile two weeks later, and then move on New Orleans again from another direction, the only thing that stopped them was news of the peace treaty. In any case had Britain really wanted to ‘invade’ the US, they would have sent far larger army than 10,000 men! The force that captured Washington and attempted to capture Baltimore numbered less than 5,000 men, not a force of conquest for a nation of over 6 million people, by any stretch of the imagination. Even Andrew Jackson said he had expected at least 20,000 men. So In reality the British expeditions in 1814-15 were punitive raiding forces directed at political and economic targets to frighten the US into peace.90.217.169.161 (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"fled like cowards" was the consensus of British and Canadian officers. The big battles at Ft Boyer saw 5 American killed (and many more Brits) but the Brits did win control of the useless location. Indeed I agree the British planned their invasions poorly and put very poor generals in charge (the ones at New Orleans and Baltimore got themselves killed, the one in NY was facing a court martial for cowardice when he died). Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep ‘poorly planned’ invasions which resulted in the capital of a nation of 6 million burnt down by less than 5,000 men, and US territory attacked at will in the final year of the war, alongside a crippling naval blockade. Very poorly planned indeed. Prevost withdrew because he would have gained nothing by continuing, however leaving that aside, the US launched 10 invasions of British territory, with overwhelming superiority and every single one of them was defeated. But I know Americans like to block this part of history out of their minds. 'the big battles at Ft Boyer saw 5 American killed (and many more Brits) but the Brits did win control of the useless location.'. The bombardment of Fort Mcenry that Americans trumpet about resulted in no British casualties, what is your point? It wasn't a useless location, it left the city of Mobile defenseless, which would have left the land approach to New Orleans defenseless as well. If you can't take losing a war then don't start one.90.217.169.161 (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has the US been agreeable to letting Enemy soldiers hold its territory simply because there weren't that many people living there? :-) I agree...mostly all the US invasions of Canada were defeated, but not so the British. Whether the areas the British held were populous or not, they were still US territory that the US Government was unable to take back (and they tried...at Prairie du chien for instance). As for Fled like Cowards...there are accounts of US regulars breaking and fleeing after 20 minutes of sustained fire(2nd river raisin) and surrendering to a smaller sized enemy forces (Battle of Beaver damns). The war of 1812 was not the best example of US soldiering. In fact...probably its worst IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The three main (over 5000 soldiers) British invasions all failed; in two cases (New Orleans and Baltimore) the commander was killed by Americans, the third (Prevost) died while awaiting his court martial in London after senior British officers attacked him for incompetence and even cowardice. The small (under 500 soldiers) British invasions that did succeed were in remote and (almost) unsettled areas (northeastern Maine, upper Great Lakes). The British Navy had a mixed record--it was defeated & lost control of two critical lakes (Erie and Champlain), but did gain control of Lake Ontario, and did very well in blockade work. Rjensen (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the British invasion of the Gulf Coast was not defeated. It suffered a significant defeat at New Orleans but the army was regrouping and preparing for further assaults on Mobile and New Orleans when the news of the peace came through and they withdrew in accordance with its terms. Dabbler (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dabbler.The New Orleans Brit force suffered only 300 dead out of 11,000 plus 1000 wounded. It was reinforced with a siege train after New Orleans. The US apparently was not willing to confront it in the field.. after New Orleans some of the US militia/troops wanted to pursue the Brits, Jackson told them not to. However, some smaller groups of 100 or so did follow the Brits to the disembarkation point…but when the Brits formed up to face them they ran off. The British force then went off and took Fort Bowyer, which they had been earlier not able to take. So despite the fact the fact the Fort had been reinforced since then, and Jackson proclaimed that 10,000 men could not take it…the Brits took it with 1400. So certainly the US could repulse this force from attacking a well defended city, but appeared otherwise powerless to stop an invasion force from roaming about the country smashing shit up....hardly a great position for any country to be in.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for British Commanders killed (I agree Brock stupidly exposing himself) and Prevost narrowly escaping a court martial, there were plenty of examples of US incompetence. For starters, there were 10 separate invasions, all pushed back. The Battle of Chateauguay saw 1800 Canadians defeat 4000 US troops. Beaver dams saw 600 US troops surrendering to 50 British troops because of 400 Indians. General Hull, gets drunk and surrenders his 2100 troops to 1300 British and Indians at Detroit. Twice attacks fail because US militia refuse to cross the US border.The disaster that was Wilkinson's 8000 strong force being chased around by Morrison's British 800 unit and ends up getting defeated. Brigadier Gen. George McClure burning Newark and letting the civilians die in the snow... the incident being disavowed by the US. Etc. Christ...what a mess!.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Canadian historians want to a) talk about American mistakes and humiliations (like the White House) and ignore British mistakes and b) are unaware that Canada's First Nations were the big losers. Oh well, it's better than the old Canadian militia myth that the Canadians not the Brits won the battles. :) Rjensen (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that American historians like to ignore American mistakes and failures (like Detroit) and emphasize unimportant successes (like New Orleans, which happened after the negotiations). They also like to ignore the fact that it was the American Indians, like the Shawnee and Cherokee, who were the big losers. Canadian First Nations like the Iroquois were rewarded for their part in the war with large reservations. There's bias on both sides of the border, Rjensen- something you seem to like to ignore. Rwenonah (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ronald I took a moment and corrected you entry a bit I hope that is ok? I'd have to say that mainstream US historians have been scathing in their reviews of Hull and Dearborn, and hardly less so of Wilkerson. As for New Orleans, Packingham was a general of some renown and he was overruled by his admiral. In that I consider him to be one of the more tragic figures of the whole war. as for the casualties here is what I have for that: 386 killed 1,521 wounded 552 missing Total: 2,459, out of 11,000 engaged. So the numbers being quoted are not correct. There were proposals to continue the fight but so where there proposals for the Russian army to continue fighting after Borodino... I can't support this idea that the invasion wasn't repulsed,I don't know a single reputable military historian that would claim it as anything short of a disaster. In point of fact the last time the idea was advanced by DL, I and others have stated this over and over. It is a long shot at the very best and certainly not anywhere near the mainstream or to my knowledge even a strong minority view. As for really good generals in this war, Brock, Scott, and Jackson, stand out, few others did. One of the main criticisms by the US War College was that there had never been a US Army Infantry College, while US Army Engineers were outstanding. Again another result is that the US Army reformed but no one would call the US Army as being its best. The performance began to increase on a pretty steady pace and as a result all three invasions were pretty soundly trounced. No sustained attempt by either side in a true large scale offense was successful on either side through the war. Most often this was a result of poor logistics, bad planning, and poor leadership. It was prevalent on both sides throughout the war. Again the after effects were pretty substantial, the Mexican/American war would show the results of the reformation of the US Army. It is used as a counterpoint to the Crimean War Logistical disaster in most war colleges to this day. Let me go on to say that there is a large trace of nationalism that lends nothing to this conversation. I am not going to be convinced by bending facts or presenting books that I've read with other interpretations. The article has to be in the centerline of current historiography and that simply isn't going to change... no matter how many time you attempt to bring it up. Facts and mainstream historians do that. If they say hey Great Britain or even Canada won, then that is what this article is going to say, they don't so it isn't. You can argue to the dawn of a new age but it won't wash.Tirronan (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was, as you pointed out, clearly wrong in saying that New Orleans was unimportant. I was simply pouting out to Rjensen that both Canadian and American historians will be influenced by nationalistic bias, not, as he seems to think, only Canadian ones. I assume you concur with me on that. I certainly agree that the war ended with no victor and that all British invasions were repulsed, shuts so you know.. I also agree that there is a large trace of nationalism in this discussion. Sadly, editors cannot be totally neutral; some amount of bias will exist. I like to think, however, that I get pretty close to neutrality.
On a less cheerful note, you accused me above of bending facts and misrepresenting books. I am unsure precisely where you think I've done this, or why you think I've done this at all. Please elaborate on that.Rwenonah (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Brits (after New Orleans) not only had plans, to continue the fight, but they were part of the way into it when they took Fort Bowyer explicitly as the first step to do so. They also received reinforcements of a siege train, which they didn't have access to at New Orleans. Historians and many in the US seems quite happy to say the British effort stopped with their defeat at New Orleans, but clearly the *facts* are the Brits were continuing the war. If anyone thnks they can prove the Brits didn't take Fort Bowyer, and weren't preparing to move on Mobile....be my guest. The Americans at the time seem to have thought they won the war with their great victory at New Orleans, and the Brits were sent on their way packing a defeated force. No one seemed to have told the Brits that.

As for historians saying Great Britain/Canada won.... *some* do say this...it is in the article already, as it should be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ronald, nothing was implied in the comment, Staggs is famous for the bargaining chip theory, and that is where he stands out from other historians. Personally I don't buy into it at all. Even Madison's cabinet questioned just how he intended to Canada back if their citizens were all for joining the Union... If you remember the movie Full Metal Jacket, "Every Cong has an American in him just waiting to burst forth? That was the idiot thinking that allowed such careless preparations for the Canadian adventures. Anyway Ronald, you have come a very long way as an editor and I am proud of you and your progression over the years. DL argue all you want I don't believe your arguments hold weight, you have brought this up multiple times and you have never gotten an agreement from the rest of us. Bring something new to light and I'd sure be interested, this isn't new and you are wasting people's time with repetition.Tirronan (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. I have brought something new to light, if you look at the discussion above. Published supporting literature by multiple reliable modern historians. It took a while though. Rwenonah (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tirronan, there is no argument. I'm stating the facts of what the British were doing. If you have evidence to support otherwise, please go ahead, otherwise...case closed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]




I would be loath to even use the term "British invasion of the US". Certainly, there were campaigns, but invasion seems strong to me. There were no Schlieffeln Plans, with documented proposals as to how the invaded territory would be occupied and annexed, coupled with the provision of sizeable forces to achieve such a goal; they simply are not there. The word does fit in well in support of describing the conflict as a "Second War of Independence". (The only British Invasion I am aware of was 150 years later, with John, Paul, George & Ringo in its vanguard.)

To borrow from the corporate world, the strategy of "muddling through" does seem to prevail. The conflict was a war of attrition, comprising a number of firefights, where it was rare for the combatants to be deployed at Division level. (This is unlike the set-piece battles in Europe.) The outcomes of this conflict were to impact US internal geopolitics and international relations for the next 50 years.

I certainly concur with DL with regard to the following:

Historians and many in the US seems quite happy to say the British effort stopped with their defeat at New Orleans, but clearly the *facts* are the Brits were continuing the war.

That point aside, I would generally concur with the succinct points raised by Tirronan (with my edits in a different colour)

I can't support this idea that the invasion wasn't offensives on American territory weren't repulsed, I don't know a single reputable military historian that would claim it as anything short of a disaster. In point of fact the last time the idea was advanced by DL, I and others have stated this over and over.
[Postwar] the US Army reformed but no one would call the US Army as being its best. The performance began to increase on a pretty steady pace and as a result all three invasions offensives on American territory were pretty soundly trounced.These last three words: the brevity of this would best be debated separately for each geographic area. New Orleans was certainly a beating, but it did not stop the British from further activity in the Gulf Coast. No sustained attempt by either side in a true large scale offense was successful on either side through the war. Most often this was a result of poor logistics, bad planning, and poor leadership. It was prevalent on both sides throughout the war.


Keith H99 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point Keith...about the term "British Invasion of the US". I generally put it in the same league, though not quite as bad in terms of being a loaded term, as "Second War of Independance". Technically they were invasions because the British crossed the Border and went into US territory. But in the military sense, they were counters to the US invasion...if you are reacting to an invasion force you are pushing back, or countering. Look at it from the other side, The UN wasn't seen as invading North Korea in the Korean war, it was countering the North Korean invasion and in so doing, crossed the 8th parrallel. Russia wasn't described as "Invading Germany" at the end of ww2...Germany invaded Russia, and Russia pushed the German forces back across the border and pursued.
In terms of the large scale strikes on US soil, they were certainly defeated, there is no argument there. But it has been said in the past that politically, "Heroics" was actually put ahead of "Territory". If you look at the big picture of the war, Britain was in possession of quite a bit of territory, it had blockaded a number of cities and neutralised the small US fleet, the US economy was in worse condition than the British one, and there were two forces under campaign in the US, the force at Mobile and another one in Georgia. US military, from what I can make out, was not willing or able to engage the British miitary in the field. So while one viewpoint can focus on the three major strikes, or indeed, just focus on New Orleans and come to a conclusion more favourbale to the US, another viewpoint can look at the whole situation and come to a completely different conculusion. Most historians are disinclined to do this.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tirronan - In support of the British force after New Orleans, not being a repulsed and defeated fighting force:

“Notwithstanding the disastrous failure of the campaign before New Orleans, the British expedition, as it lay off Chandeleur Island February 1, still possessed nearly as much strength as when it appeared there December 11. Reinforced by a thousand fresh soldiers, Lambert determined to attack mobile” - Adams, Henry, “The War of 1812” p 321 Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Names

Weren't there other names used to refer to this war? Seems to come from the American post-event point of view to call it the 'War of 1812'. Would be more academic to call it 'British-American War of 1812' or some more accepted name. But I have heard it referred to as the 'Second War for American Independence'. Any other names? Can these be mentioned in the article? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called 'Second War for American Independence' by US historians that want to equate it to The American Revolution (and still is, in fact A J Languth's book from 2006 includes it in its subtitle). It has also been called "The Canadian War of 1812" the "Anglo-American War of 1812". It was called a variety of things depending on who was writing and when...British writers called it "The North American War" amongst other things. From looking at primary sources, it looks like it was initially called "The American war of 1812"...which was shortened to "The War if 1812, and by the 1830's it was commonly called "The war of 1812". There are primary sources, written in the war, that refer to it as "The War of 1812" even while the war was on. I think its a good suggestions having other names in here for it, not sure why there aren't, possibly they were and were taken out for some reason. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Second War of Independence" theme appeared during the war itself and is mildly popular in the US today. For example the prestigious "Library of America" just published The War of 1812: Writings from America's Second War of Independence edited by Hickey (2013) Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really?..wow suprised at someone of Hickey's calibre using that term for it? *rolls eyes* Do you think they use that term n books because they think it will makeit more attention grabbing to American eyes and possibly sell more books?. From a non US point of view, the term "Second War of Independence" it looks really silly, and is the worst example of trying to rename something to claim it as something it wasn't...Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes really. No it is not used to sell books. It expresses an interpretation of the meaning of the war--one that was common in 1812 (see Jackson in this article) and is common today. The British were treating the US badly in several ways and American honor was at stake. Numerous scholars have used the "2nd war of independence" as titles of books and chapters. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common for US academics with an interest in the War of 1812 to call it the "2nd war of Independence" and see that as perfectly reasonable? I assumed it would just be fringe historians or something. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is common and reasonable as a subtitle. The term "War of 1812" however is always given more prominence. The "2nd war of Independence" has never been a fringe viewpoint among scholars.Rjensen (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, how can the War of 1812 be reasonably referred to as a "War of Independence" when firstly it was the US who invaded British Territory and secondly....the US was already independent??? I think it is quite bizarre. The War of Independence and the War of 1812 are completely different. If anything, it is Canada's War of Independance from the US Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US felt that they were being bullied by the British at sea, and that Britain was setting up an Indian State that would take control much of the American Midwest (the Lake Michigan region) and block American expansion there. That is Britain was trying to control American foreign policy (re trade with France), and trying to seize a huge amount of American land, and treating the US with no respect or honor. "Honor" was a big theme for Americans and war was the only solution (for the majority that is--there was a lot of opposition to the war in the Northeast which wanted closer relations with Britain). As for Canada, it took over a century for it to become independent. Rjensen (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you underestimate the effect of the war on the Canadian colonists' psyche. While they did not earn independence from the British, they did not want it at that time. They did gain a certain degree of confidence in facing the very real fear of American annexation in later American threats to take over much of the west thirty years or so later. In a sense the mythic effect of this war was to give Canadians a sense of identity and nationalism especially against Americans which still persists to a degree today. It also generated such myths as the militia fighting back and is why most Canadians still believe that the Americans always intended to annex Canadian territory despite American claims that they had no such intention. Dabbler (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well that's not quite how I read Canadian history after 1815. I would put John Strachan and the British imperialists front and center, with their opposition to democracy and republicanism, thus leading the the revolts in 1837. Strachan was the man who invented the militia myth for example. There has been a lot of anti-Americanism in British Canada with the fear of American control front and center. You see it in the election of 1911 for example. I have been working through the Canadian textbooks and they do NOT claim that annexation was a serious threat. Nevertheless the Canadian high school teachers in Ontario I talk to seem indeed to believe the myth and pass it along to the kids. Call it an oral tradition. West of Ontario there is much less of this, & probably in Quebec there is less. (The Francophones esp in Quebec seem to distrust the Anglophone Canadians far more than they distrust Americans.) (Atlantic Canada? there it's much more complicated I think.) Actually most Canadians had a very positive notion about life in the US, which generated a strong net migration to the US, from both French and British areas. (There was a counter-movement into Canada in 1970s esp with Vietnam War opponents, who have provided an articulate anti-American factor in recent decades.) Rjensen (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the "First American War of Independence", the US is a colony of Britain, it's unhappy about this, revolts and gets its independence. Clearly, an apt title.

The "Second War of Independence"...the US invades Canada. Canada and Britain are unhappy and repel the invasion. Canada maintains its independence of the US. So even though the US invaded Canada, and Canada repelled the invasion, and Britain had no intention of taking over the US.....US historians commonly call it the "2nd American War of Independence"???????.... .....just speechless......Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for Canada getting its independence...that's an American concept. Doesn't apply to Commonwealth countries in the same way. We don't celebrate an independence day, because mostly there was no *clean break* and many of us (including Canada) still have the Queen as our head of state. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabbler - *Everyone* believes the US's purpose was to annex Canada, not just Canadians. Americans are the only ones who try to argue they were just taking Canada and saving it for Britain.....while they were busy, and *of course* intended to hand it back later :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Canadian high school teachers do not teach that annexation was a serious cause. Not that what they say matters on Wikipedia, anyway. American high school teachers teach quite a few myths about the war as well. For example, I think they emphasize the fact that Dolly Madison "managed to save a few paintings from the burning of the White House", when in fact it was some slaves and a random Frenchman. I guess having the President's wife save paintings sounds better than having a group of unpaid, indentured servants and an itinerant foreigner save them. Another example would be that I read through the U.S. Navy's list of curriculum resources once, and 8 out of 12 mentioned the "Star-Spangled Banner". Which, of course, has nothing to do with practical history. Seems like schools just can't be neutral these days. Rwenonah (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, ironic that slaves were saving Whitehouse paintings from the British...who were actively freeing slaves Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those so-called freed slaves were sold back into slavery by the British for "Prize" money. Slaves were still being worked to death on British plantations growing coffee and sugar for these freedom loving and genteel British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.41.130 (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that accusation was made in the press in 1814, but there is no documentary evidence to support this, so as to deter any would-be runaways from escaping, and fleeing to the British. I am seeing quite a few opinions being stated, which are not backed up with supporting source documentation.
I am aware of several slaves, who had escaped to the British in 1815 and who were returned to their masters by Cockburn, so as to not to antagonise the Americans. The war saw the largest emancipation of enslaved African-American slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, with about 4,000 being relocated to Nova Scotia. It was in the interests of the former slave-owners to relocate their former "chattels", as the British had to pay compensation to US slave owners, and this took place during the 1820s.
Whilst there was a strong support for the abolitionist movement within the Royal Navy, this was simply a case of the British using economic warfare to weaken the US, as slavery was still in existence in British colonies in the West Indies.
It was the Creek Indians who got the "40 acres and a mule" treatment in this conflict, as the politicians in London reneged the Indians, and their attempt to get their lands restored, under Article 9 of the Treaty of Ghent.
This is getting off-topic, anyway, and I have a new question to ask. Keith H99 (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did the term "Second War of Independence" first come into use. Was it just after the war, or was it in the 1820s? Is James Fenimore Cooper one of the first people to have used the term in his writings? Keith H99 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence...

....in the second para is weird... "Both sides invaded each other's territory, but these invasions were unsuccessful or made temporary by the Treaty of Ghent, which restored all occupied territory to its pre-war owner."

The whole concept of invasions being either *unsuccessful* or *made temporary* seems to an awkward way of expressing the war...and possibly weird spin?. Some invasions or counter strikes were successful, some were unsuccessful. At the end of the war both sides signed the Treaty of Ghent, and all parties returned occupied land to its pre war owner.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Indians" offensive?

The article does state that "First Nations" is used in Canada, which is true, so why not use that instead? Or how about, "Native American" or "Aboriginal".

No. "Indian" is standard usage. (see for example the title of this recent major book: The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies (2010) by Alan Taylor; he is a winner of the Pulitzer prize.) The term "First Nation" is only used for Indian tribes in Canada. Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict on the Chesapeake campaign

I have come across a book review by Andrew Lambert. He has reviewed the new book from Peter Snow, When Britain Burned the White House: The 1814 Invasion of Washington. Lambert's viewpoint is expressed thus:

'With peace restored in Europe, the British government was anxious to end the American war and focus on reconstruction closer to home. The Royal Navy's tight blockade had already strangled the US economy, while successive invasions of Canada had been defeated. Now it was high time the enemy was made to recognise reality.'
'In this classic operation, the honours were shared equally between the two services... The US Government had been obliged to flee the capital, its army had been dispersed and public credit collapsed. The country was bankrupt.'
'Buoyed by success, the same miniscule force then attempted to repeat the measure at nearby Baltimore. After Ross had been killed in a skirmish, the British wisely withdrew rather than attack a foe five times more numerous and strongly entrenched on high ground. While the War of 1812 may be largely forgotten [in the UK], these battles left a lasting legacy: the blizzard of rockets and mortar shells ... enshrined in the opening lines of the US National Anthem: for the next 80 years America spent most of its defence budget on coast defences, and the US never again tried to conquer Canada.'

Source: BBC History Magazine, November 2013, page 63

Whilst there has been the ongoing debate about "winning" the war overall, I have not seen any discourse with regard to the Chesapeake campaign. There have been historiographical quotes from scholars, and their perspectives. When I read the above, I did think it would be likely to start some debate specifically on this campaign. Keith H99 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble Latimer book on 1812

Hickey in a major new journal article p 439 states: "Although the late Jon Latimer professed to present the British perspective in his award-winning study, 1812: War with America (2007), he failed to do the job; and in any case, his work is so contaminated by plagiarism and fraudulent citations that it is best ignored (and probably ought to be withdrawn from publication)." Hickey cites "see Donald R. Hickey, "What Was the British Perspective?" Journal of the War of 1812 11 (Winter 2009): 7-15, which can be found at: http://journal.thewarof1812.info/archive.asp.htm " . Hickey's article is Hickey, Donald R (Sept. 2013). "1812: The Old History and the New". Reviews in American History 41 (3): 436–44. and is online at Project MUSE. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hickey certainly makes a controversial stance. I cannot access the whole article. Are there people of eminence in the academic community whom are backing Hickey? Conversely, are there any historians that are coming to Latimer's aid, or does nobody care?
You made a notable comment in September, namely:
The "Second War of Independence" theme appeared during the war itself and is mildly popular in the US today. For example the prestigious "Library of America" just published The War of 1812: Writings from America's Second War of Independence edited by Hickey (2013) Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To express my opinion on a matter, one of the best publications out there has come from the US Navy, their "The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History" which compiles primary source documents from both the UK and the US. I eagerly await their fourth volume. If Hickey's similar project, as you mentioned above, is able to do the same, then it would be a welcome departure from the usual mediocre publications on the War of 1812. A lot of these books just recycle what is out there in previous publications, without referring to source documents, and regurgitating fraudulent facts from unreliable sources such as Arsene Latour and his comments on Fort Bowyer, which are contradicted by Andrew Jackson.
I guess controversial titles do help to sell books. Peter Snow's book is referring to the "Invasion of Washington" when the town was held for a mere 26 hours. I am surprised that Hickey's recent publication refers in its title to the similarly loaded term of "Second War of Independence". I was led to believe that Hickey's book "The Rockets' Red Glare: An

Illustrated History of the War of 1812", published in 2011, recounted to the reader that the term of "Second War of Independence" was an oversimplification. 'Twin myths immediately grew up that it had been a glorious victory and a Second War of Independence; myths that suited the political establishment and the aspirations of former officers and generals to seeking to forge political careers.'

Hickey is probably the most prominent scholar on the war and he is MAD at Latimer for misusing Hickey's hard work. Scholars will probably agree with Hickey unless some one manages to come to Latimer's defense (and no one has to my knowledge.) Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The War of 1812 is an overlooked conflict. As such, it would probably explain why there are books out there which are rehashes of other works, which are themselves full of plagiarisms and unverified assertions: not enough people are reading, and identifying poorly written tomes. If Hickey's actions are a shot across the bow of lazy authors and careless publishers, and encourage others to raise the bar, then all well and good. Keith H99 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede para and Canada

This section has evolved to discuss modern attitudes to the War rather than constitutional niceties. As a Canadian I can tell you that the Statute of Westminster is totally ignored by the modern Canadian. If asked they would say that Canada began as a nation in 1867 and that this was in part due to the nationalist feelings developed during the War of 1812 and the rebellions of 1837. The First World War is also seen as another important bit of nation building. The Canadian militia is also believed to have been a major part of the British victory (and the militia did participate in the so-called iconic battles named) which is why I would like to see it included in this section. Dabbler (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to sound blunt, but if Canadians don't know their own history that is really not our problem. The 1867 act was created by the British Parliament some 52 years after the war ended. It did not grant Canadians one iota more independence than they had in 1866. Canada automatically entered the First World War in 1914 precisely because it was under British control at that time, a century after the War of 1812 allegedly created nationalist feelings.
I do not deny the participation of Canadian militia but all the militia was ultimately British just like the militia of New York, Pennsylvania, etc. was American.
CJK (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F579543228