Talk:War of 1812/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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

  I too have seen this, its a valid statement. Im tired and can't remember the source of it, however i am positive of it validity.
   Also, if you read 1812, the novel about the young helper of Sir Isaac Brock. this belief was expressed in the fictitious novel, and I believe it was sourced as well. B.D

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)