Talk:War of 1812/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Why the British won the War of 1812

Why the British won the War of 1812 In reply to GABaker's post (above)

(1) The US goal of invading Canada was defeated

(2) The US war goal of stopping impressment was not acheived. It stopped before the war, and the British refused to sign away their right to impress in the treaty

(3) Military the US lost most of the land battles.

(4) The Brits generally only lost land battles when they were attacking dug in troops, or outnumbered. In contract, the US lost a number of battles to smaller forces.

(5) The British army ended the war occupying US soil. They were preparing to attack mobile when the treaty was signed. There was no US army challenging them in the field. In an historical sense, victory is given in a battle to the army that possess the field at the end of the conflict.

(6) In summary, at the end of the war, the British army was in US territory. It possessed Maine, and its Navy completely controlled the water. If anything(though the treaty was signed and previous frontiers returned) the war was a tactical victory for the British Empire.

(1)If the US goal was to invade Canada then that goal was met. Canada was invaded ;) Can you cite what the US's goals with respect to Canada were? Can you cite any territorial demands made by the Americans on any Canadian territory before, during or immediately after the war?

(2)The brits never again used impressment so this can't be cited as a loss for the US

(3)The US lost most of their land battles in the war for indepenance and the Viet Cong and north vietnamese lost essentially *all* of their land battles against the US in the Vietnam war. Number of battles won or lost doesn't dictate the results of a war.

(4)see (3)

(5) nonsense. A war can even be lost when a participant is in control of territory many times what they held at the outset. For instance the Germans lost ww1 despite winning military control of vast territories on the East front and confining nearly all of the fighting to their enemies home turf on all fronts.

(6) The british navy was no more in control of the water at the end of the war than they were at it's beginning. Certainly they were unable to protect their shipping from US privateers.Zebulin 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mobile? Sorry, that was a sideshow. The real prize in North America is New Orleans, and the British failed there spectacularly.

There are only a few key ports that connect to river transport. Mobile is a fine seaport, but the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river systems drain in New Orleans. Please note that in the American Civil War that was the first key port the North grabbed from the south.

The U.S. Army won more battles than it lost towards the last year of the war: and in New Orleans, it defeated a Peninsular general. Trivial. The U.S. Army was a professional army in 1814, and the British knew it.

We gained control of the Great Lakes in 1814. Wellington knew that defeating the U.S. was impossible without control of these lakes, and advised against any such attempt.

I don't know why people seem so eager to pin a defeat on the U.S. when the U.S. came out of the war with its intangible war goals accomplished. Yes, the Southerners didn't grab Canada; but we grabbed the rest of the continent. I think part of this is the "we need to bring the Yanks down a peg/I hate American" attitude. But, on terms of achievement, the U.S. made it clear it was the power on North America, and no British development in less populous, more open Canada was going to balance that. Let Britain have the rest of the world. We got the part we wanted. -- GABaker 7 August 2007 0136 UTC.

To clarify, why the British won the war of 1812

(1)US tried to invade Canada, each invasion force with objectives. Objectives not taken, invasion forces defeated. By end of war, all US invasion forces repulsed from Canadian soil

(2)The Brits stopped using Impressment before the war began, because of US concerns, and, militarily, the need for impressment was no longer there ...so the war's prosecution did not result in the stopping of impressment

(3)True, and a good point. The Number of land battles by itself doesn't dictate a war lost or gained, but in context, with other factors, it definitely says something. In this case, the reason why the US lost most of the land battles does relate to why they lost the war.

(4) See 3

(5) Actually, being in possession of territory at the end of a war does generally indicate who is winning. The example you gave of WW1, with the Germans losing, but having a lot of land at the end of WW1 is pretty unusual. Most wars end with the loser having less land at the end of the war than they did at the beginning, if they end up with any land at all eg WW2, Falklands, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, Korea, Boer war, Vietnam, Russian Civil war, Iran-Iraq war.

(6) True, they weren't in control of the seas in the sense that there were privateers (from both sides) active. However, militarily the Royal Navy had tightened their blockade on US ports to the point where the US couldn't challenge it, except to blockade run. Privateers could attack British Merchant shipping (and certainly did), however the Brits had privateers from the UK, Canada and Bermuda attacking US shipping. All up, more US ships were captured than British, and the Brits had a bigger merchant (and Naval) fleet anyway. Plus the Brits were using American shipping from New England to get supplies for their army in Spain, which (I'm guessing?) weren't attacked. Overall, by wars end, the RN had blockaded the ports and this was affecting the US economically and militarily.

GABaker. You talk about the amazing feat of a little country standing up against a giant and surviving. You're thinking that little country is the US. But I'm thinking of CANADA. Deathlibrarian 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember the United States was a small country then, too. -- GABaker

There was no country of Canada in 1812-1814. --Noren 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

and even if we pretend there was it was a case of Canada and it's big brother vs the US not Canada vs the US.Zebulin 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Napoleonic wars is forgotten here. That got most of Britain's attention for most of the war. For two years. Tourskin 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To further illustrate the point, if Mexico declared war and invaded the United States and America responded by repelling the invaders, launching a counter attack and razing Mexico City to the ground I think most Americans would consider that a slam dunk victory. -chris m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.246.25 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How about if the US began forcing commercial passenger planes to land then rounding up mexicans on the planes and impressing them into service to fight in Iraq. The US government decides in washington to stop the practice but elects to publish the decision through a letter mailed to the mexican government. Before the letter is recieved Mexico rashly declares war and rashly invades the US. The US military bombs the mexican capitol to cinders but embarrassingly loses several important naval battles denying it access to important stretches of the west coast. The US government pulls out of Iraq and seeing no further need for conflict suggests peace on the terms of restoring the status quo antebellum. Mexico agrees but the US fails to call off an invasion of mexico which is embarrassingly routed. Mexicans celebrate victory on the basis of the irrelevant battle and the end of conflict and the end of the original grevienances and The US largely forgets the embarrassing affair. Now who would you say "won" the conflict? Did the mexicans really lose? did anybody lose apart from the mortified US navy?Zebulin 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, can this just be dropped? Stop feeding the anonymous trolls.Narson 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's quite possibly the same annonymous troll whom I recently needed to revert from changing the article to "decisive british victory". I directed them to this talk page so if they feel the need to post something here I'd rather respond here than in an edit war in the article.Zebulin 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

how much does this aritcal get vandalised? if its a lots i think it should be locked-chris m

This debate is completely ridiculous. The War of 1812 was one of the most one sided wars in history. The outcome was perfectly clear; the USA emphatically outdone militarily as well as diplomatically and failing to achieve ANY of their ambitions at the start of the war. The USA is the only hyperpower in the world at the moment. I would have thought this status would have made its citizens quite immune to hurting over a war in which they happened to get quite clearly hammered almost 2 centuries ago. 80.80.176.20 23:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have some more information about how the US was emphatically outdone diplomatically in the war. I had not even heard that this was the case until just now. Could you elaborate a bit on this dimension of British victory? Perhaps you are referring to the way the empire managed to get all of it's recent anti Napolean allies to join them in declaring war on the united states? that was an amazing diplomatic victory I must admit.Zebulin 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no concessions either way really in the treaty of ghent. The war result was a status quo, as to whether its a victory either way, its pretty debatable (as the constant conversation proves). Personally I think it was a British victory, however as even history books debate whether it was a win for either side or a total draw, I think simply stating the result as the treaty of ghent and a 'no change' is the most neutral way to go. Narson 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

They BOTH won the war

I think this is sort of common wisdom now - regardless of # of casualties or who won what victory when or who burned whose capital and which was more important, both countries FELT like they had won the war. Technically one might call it a draw, given the status quo ante bellum treaty ending. It would be more accurate, though - if more abstract - to look at the issue from a historiographic view and let both sides be the victors, since both sides felt that way.

So who lost the war? Easy answer to that one: the Indians.

Incidentally I noticed Pierre Berton's account is not on the reference list (unless I'm overlooking it). I thought it was a good read, if perhaps a little pro-Canada. Dmhaglund 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the Americans got the ability to head to the west and take all whilst the British held onto Canada. Victory for all.Tourskin 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting to keep Canada is a victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.185.164 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, getting to keep Canada is a victory.Acanadian 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)acanadian

News flash: THE WAR OF 1812 IS OVER!!!

It seems that the war lives on in the minds of many contributors to this talk page. However, the Treaty of Ghent was signed by the combatants in 1814-1815. The result: Status quo ante bellum. The article reflects this.

This page is for discussion of changes to the article—not for endless rehashing of the war. Read the archives. It has all been said before. If you must discuss it, find a blog. Time to move on. Sunray 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh..yeah. Thanks for the information. It is completely relevant to be discussed here because this page is one of the most pro US biased pages on Wikipedia that I have come across. A facet of information for this page is being discussed. If you don't like it, you simply don't have to read it. This page constantly reflects people unhappy with the US bias on this page.This is wikipedia, people should be free to discuss problems with a page as much as they feel the need. Deathlibrarian 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I think we should bring some focus to your concern. The debate over who won has been continuing for three years. That is not germane to these pages. So how about you raise some specific points that document your concern about bias. Then, perhaps we can deal with them. Sunray 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I am being too amorphous and should focus on exactly what issues, and I'm not being particularly helpful by being general. However the who won the war thing is something that should be addressed here. Clearly people are not happy about how it is presented here, as the topic keeps coming up. While the US wikipedia editors are happy with the result, editors from other countries seem to not see it so. It really can't be pushed ot the side, it will always be brought up here until the article reflects various viewpoints on who won....and so it should.

There is a lot of bias that Americans wouldn't notice. An example is the introduction box. It has the reasons for why the US declared war, and their greivances...but says nothing about Britain and how they thought their reasons were unfounded, and how the saw the war as opportunistic.203.35.150.226 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this? Sunray 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wether I have sources for it or not, there is no description of UK reaction, just a statement of what the US saw as their grievances. I can tell you, without source, that the UK did not welcome an attack on their lightly defended colony while they were in a life or death struggle with Napoleon.Deathlibrarian 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC) "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" by Arthur Herman. I believe this book details more British opinion, I don't have it though. There aren't a lot of British commentary on the war because everthing at the time was written about Waterloo!! Deathlibrarian 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that both sides accomplished most if not all of their war aims. War is not a zero-sum game. Often in war, both sides lose; this was a rare case when both sides won. It's hard to imagine that--it's counter intuitive-- but it happens. GABaker 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)GABaker -- 8 Aug 2007 1445 UTC.

I agree with the statement that this article is very pro-US. If the war was a draw, why does the article seem so focused on the US achievements? Surely it should be more balanced --Alex 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

let's start with just the overview. Can you name specific US achievements that should be removed there? Can you name some British achievments that should be added there? Let's see if we even agree that the overview at least is balanced before tackling the rest of the article.Zebulin 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that both sides won is interesting. The Americans won pride and nationalism and with it the ability to conquer the west without too much British interference. The British were able to hold on to their lightly defended colony and pursue a so called "Gunboat diplomacy". Tourskin 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Article

For me at least it is very true that this war is hardly remembered in Britain. I just found out about it by reading this article. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.223.193.144 (talk) 01:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. Raised in Britain, I remember reading one page of this from one history revision guide by Letts (it was light cream in colour and had all wierd history symbols and pics on it). So yes, this war, which I think the British should be proud of just as the Americans are, severly under-cover it. If thats even a term. Tourskin 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol not that I editted much of this tho!Tourskin 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am British and take a keen interest in British history, especially regarding the British Empire. However, I never knew about the 1812 war until just a year ago when a fleeting mention (about four words) was made of the war with America in Lawrence James's definitive history of the British Empire - 'The Rise and Fall of the British Empire' (1999). Subsequent to this, I have found out about the war mostly from American sources such as wikipedia - you are hard pressed to find any mention of it in the UK. It appears that this was a big event in America's history - a battle with their old colonial masters - yet to the UK it was nothing but a minor sideshow to the European war with Napoleon. If the US had actually achieved any form of concrete victory such as conquering Canada, then maybe it would get a mention! As it stands its one of the forgotten Imperial conflicts that Britain seemingly was having in all parts of the globe with numerous other nations at the time. The article is very biased towards the American view by the way and seems to spin it as some sort of victory, but perhaps this is because hardly any British scholars have attached any signficance to it. In a sense, Britain largely maintained the 'Status Quo' which since this meant Britain would remain on top, was its main goal of military conflict at the time. Stuzzer 14:11 10th September 2007

any specific suggestions for fixing the bias? perhaps rewrites of some small portion of the article to illustrate the bias and changes you are proposing?Zebulin 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This war has affected Canadians the most and is probably most popular in Canada because of its outcome, ie if Canada and Britain didnt win this war Canada wouldnt exist right now. Also Its been said that there was no "Canada" back then, but thats just American ignorence of Canadian history. There was "Canada" it was just British Colonies back than, "Upper and Lower CANADA" were the 2 main colonys (what is now Ontario and Quebec). Just because they were colonys doesnt mean there wasnt "Canadians" in them. They still had "Canadians" who were actually born in "Canada" at that time. They fought in the militias that are being mentioned as "British" militias when really they were made up mostly of Canadian born troops, Ansestors of us Canadians. This war is indeed more popular in Canada than it is anywhere else, Britain or the USA because it was a defining point in Canadian history and is probably relativly forgotten about anywhere else (since the Americans wanna forget it for obvious reasons and the majority of Brits were actually focused on other things during this time). The Americans like to say it wasn't Canada (most likly as to not hurt there pride) but the reality is that alot of the fighters in this war were Canadian born militia under the command of british regulars, even if there was no official independant nation called "Canada" they were still Canadian. This Article doesn't reflect that at all. I agree that it's really bias and looks like something out of an American History book (as opposed to a Canadian one) and I can understand why no-one in britain probably knows it ever happened.

99.236.151.116 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the so called French and Indian War was a war between the US and the British empire against the French empire or a war between the British empire and it's subjects against the French empire? The US has no more been at war with Canada than it has been at war with France. Furthermore if Canada was already established in 1812 why do we commemorate Canada Day?Zebulin 17:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have never heard of the Quasi-war with France then. Tirronan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you never thought about what "Quasi" means then. ;) In any case you appear to be missing my point. I was responding to the assertion that the US was at war with Canada in 1812.Zebulin 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

its only Quasi if you are not on the receiving end of the cannon fire. ;p All joking aside however the US couldn't reach the UK and the only reason for the invasion was to get at the UK one way or the other. In any case as far as wars go this was one joke of a war and the US sure got a lesson in now not to run a war from the Army side of things. US artillery and Engineering branches gave good service and interestingly enough they had their own schools teaching the art. The infantry branch and the sorry state of the officers appointed haunted efforts at real war making. The US Navy gave good account of itself because of the Naval yards, establishment and the professionalism of its officer corps. This was sadly lacking in the US Army at its core, the Infantry and its officers. Tirronan 22:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Combatants

Why has all the smaller parts of the British Empire been listed? Should we list all the states of the USA at this stage as well? Don't forget that whilst the listed combatants on the British side all have the Union Jack, the American states had their own flags, further strengthening my argument:

• We should either list the states of the US as well

OR

• Just label it as British Empire only.

I prefer the second option - in theory whenever the British Empire gose to war, volunteers can be raised from any of her colonies and yet we don't see a long list in every British Empire war.Tourskin 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I disagree with it here. Reasoning being that there was a marked difference in training and quality between the British regulars (who wore red uniforms and probably came from England) and the Canadian militia (who didn't). The American forces were relatively more uniform in comparison. Bermuda hardly seems relevant as a 'combatant' though; I will remove it. Dmhaglund 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Its got the British Empire and Canada now. Tourskin 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, as the Canadian militia took a major role; are you saying it is unreasonable? If it's any help, the French and Indian War article lists Britain and American Colonies as separate combatants. And as to the second point, members of the British Empire didn't automatically go to war when Britain did; to use the same example, American colonial militias fought alongside British regulars in North America, where it was in their interests to do so; they didn't, and weren't expected to, send troops to fight with the British army in Europe, or India, or any other theatre of the war. (anyway, I only came here over "Decisive British victory", but it's been fixed already; does thispage have its own rapid response team?) Xyl 54 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of "War hawks" terminology

Someone edited this page to say "war hawks" and other things that seem unbecoming of an encyclopedic article. Also, to say in the body of the article:

(According to the book by textbook author James W. Loewen in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me") The most important cause of the war was land, Spanish land (Florida), British land (Canada), and the biggest chunk of land was the Indians land. After war was declared Britain offered to withdraw the trade restrictions, but it was too late for the American "War Hawks", who turned the conflict into what they called a "second war for independence." While the officially-stated reasons for declaring war were ending impressment, ending harassment of mercantile shipping, and ending British military support for western native tribes, a major goal of the "war hawks" in the western and southern states was aggressive territorial expansion.

This seems more like an expression of opinion than anything. While I don't necessarily think that this following statement is true, I do think that it would be much more appropriate than the current one. My proposed revision: "While the officially-stated reasons for declaring war were --such-and-such--, --such-and-such-scholar-- believed that a major goal of those American politicians in favor of the war in the western and southern states was territorial expansion.(some citation listed here)" Since no citation is given for this statement here, I would say that it needs to be removed, since it is a biased statement based on original research or non-cited sources.

Even my proposed version seems to be weasely, so I think that this should be written to "show" and not just to "tell" the reader what to think.

At very least, the statement that "a major goal of the "war hawks"...(etc.)" should be qualified by a phrase that indicates that it is a view of someone in particular, instead of just flat-out saying it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotbeat (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the War Hawks were a recognizable faction who figured prominently in the debate about going to war, I certainly think that it is appropriate to mention them. However, we do need better citations for this section. Couldn't that be dealt with by placing "citation needed" tags on the specific statements that need citations? Sunray 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

War Hawks seems to be used quite frequently by much other commentary on the War of 1812, so can't see why it shouldn't be used here. 10:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

The section closely follows the citation given: The U.S. Army's Center for Military History. Thus it certainly is not original research. The war hawks were a very real faction and the reference does mention them. If editors believe that this reference is unduly biased, perhaps they would want to add other references as well. I personally don't see a problem with the reference since the section deals with "causes of the war." As the Americans declared war, it seems appropriate to have an American military reference to describe why war was declared. I am going to remove the "neutrality" tag, and would encourage those who don't consider the section neutral to add cited material from other sources that give a different point of view. Sunray 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was however this has been given the cast that the primary reason was aqquistion of territory when in fact the US had all it could stand at the time (it has just doubled in size and was all unoccupied. The plan as my reading had it was the grabbing of Canada as a bargining chip to end the war (I'll give you Canada back and you keep your warships out of our waters) type of thing rather than a all out land grab. As for Florida this had to do more with the Creeks than with the Spanish as they seemed to have zero control of the territory. However this statement is in variance with the "Causes of the War of 1812" article and like large sections in this edit happy zeto citation article where everyone feels free to insert their opinion instead of stating the facts and citing it... this will get changed tonight with the correct citations as well. PS, how about knocking off with the massive Canadian inferoity complex? I swear by all that is Holy we in the US do not dream of occupying the Country of Canada, in 50 years as a citizen of the US I have never heard anyone even talk about it. (though I do confess the Quebec thing leaves us scratcing our heads and wondering what the hell that is about) Tirronan 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

The commanders box seems a bit lop-sided; there should probably be a few more listed for the British and Indians, and Seeing as how the Canadians are proud of their involvement, there should probably be a Canadian commander listed. Also On the American side, I think that William Henry Harrison should probably be added, as he did defeat Tecumseh.(Lucas(CA) 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Spain?`

Was spain truely involved in the war of 1812? I find this an unlikely idea, considering it was, until 1814, a puppet of the French. Narson 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As the British were responsible for liberating Spain(and Portugal) during the Peninsular War it is certainly feasable thet the would have sided with the British(particulaly in the later stages of the war), however i have no specific details. Lucasshark33 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the information was removed and not re-inputted, so I suspect it was mis-information vandalism. Narson 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You know now that I read this I vaguely remember something around St. Agustine FL about a Spanish force kicking someone out of the area during the period. Tirronan 04:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah here it is Battle of Pensacola with General Jackson (a distant cousin of mine) trying to start a war with the Spanish too apparently. Tirronan 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

France

Did France play a part in the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.244.191 (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No. France was fighting a war against Great Britain and the Sixth Coaltion at the time, but there was never a formal alliance between the United States and the French Empire.--GABaker 1635 UTC 12 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

White House and Parliament

Why isn't the U.S. burning down the Canadian Parliament and the British retaliating by burning down the White House even mentioned in this article? It's one of the most important events of the war. If it's mentioned in the White House article, it should be mentioned here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House#Early_use.2C_the_1814_fire.2C_and_rebuilding

i don't think it existed back then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.246.25 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't a 'canada' for there to be a parliament of. They could have burnt down the legislative assembly house of either Upper Canada or Lower Canada (Seperate colonies) though. Narson 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a little tired of this kooky historical terminology hypocracy. How can you call it the "American Revolutionary War" since you were just a bunch of United Colonies? Upper and Lower Canada were collectively British North America(BNA) and only one BNA assembly was burned down and that was in York...now part of Toronto and since the original stones are still there you can check to see what it says on the parliament walls (now Ontario's parliament). This whole thing about a colony not being a country or even an entity allowed to have a name is like saying a City that used to be a Town didn't exist when it was a Town of the same name. The "Sacking of York" was the reason for the retaliation on Washington and the White House.--Thehighlndr (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe what Narson was pointing out is we keep trying to make this a US/Canada war, news flash, the US wouldn't have invaded without the US/UK being at war with one another. News flash two, when you write a history you call it by the name that was used at the time, and if it is historically interesting you put what it became. that isn't hypocracy that is being historically accurate. If you have a more accurate name and a source to cite with it... help yourself. This page exists to make the article better. After reading 4 different books on the subject for this article, I've come to the conclusion that most of the reason for the buring of DC was because Admiral Cochrane thought that was the right way to teach the US not to mess with Britian. This was a complex war fought for differing reasons on both sides trying to make this a US vs. Candian war is not accurate in any sense of the term. I am quite sure that the Goverment of Canada as well as the Goverment of the US is not now nor then had many reasons to go after one another with the exceptions that brought the US and UK to war. Tirronan (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This war was not some co-invasion or dual declaration of war...the United States had a number of official and unofficial objectives (see War Hawks) and BNA and Britain retaliated along with support from Natives. And if you check the historical records...the Local Militia(Canadian or Colonial) were crucial to numerous victories esp. in Upper Canada(Ontario now) and the number of British troops or the strength of the forces even combined with the Militia was far outstripped by the US invasion force. The majority of the British forces were tied up with Napoleon. The problem has a lot to do with the comments of Colonies not being real or their own entities until they completely separated from Britain (or Spain) and few countries or historians view it this way besides the United States. Canada had one of the most gradual separations and we didn't fight for independence, except in the War of 1812. As far as terminology from a pure historical perspective...the United States of America, should never rightly be called just America as that includes multiple Continents (NA, CA & SA)...there is a very funny song about it, but no where else has a single country called itself by the same name as the entire continent. That type of selective pickiness on nation terminolgy is unfair to slam on Canadians for what is part of their heritage just as the "American Revoltionaries" and "American Militia" is used as terms long before the declaration of independence on the Wiki here. Even there it refers to British Canada (which was a Colony), but just as USA is called America. Check here: http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/o5_e.cfm a Gov of Canada site for the Origin of the country name is that the Colony was officially known as Canada in 1791. So whether Colony or Country...all such residents after 1791 were technically Canadians and legal residents of the British Colony of Canada. Therefore any such usage of Canada or Canadian is just as valid as say Michigan Militias for the same time period. --Thehighlndr (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In all other wars in which an empire goes to war the war is regarded as being between the empire and the foreign state not as between the each individual colony along with the empire vs the foreign state. This is the reason that Korea is not regarded to have gone to war against the allies in ww2, or why the US is not regarded as having gone to war against France in the French and Indian war, or why ireland isn't regarded as having gone to war against the 13 colonies during the US war for independence and the war of 1812 or why every other war is regarded as being between an empire and it's enemies not as some sort of alliance between the imperial power along with it's colonies against it's enemies. States can't even declare war against colonies they can only declare war against the sovereign government. When a colony is granted enough sovereignty to opt out of a war only then is separate consideration given. Canada simply did not have any sovereignty at all in 1812. The long journey to complete independence had not even begun.

Your absurd complaining about how the US chose to name itself doesn't seem to relate in any way to improving the article but I can't help but wonder if you are opposed to further integration of the countries in the European Union as (horrors!) that could eventually lead to a country calling itself the European Union despite not actually controlling the entire european continent. At the time the founders of the US probably thought the name "United states of America" sounded quite as logical as "European Union" must have sounded to the architects of the EU.Zebulin (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, first of all Central America is not a continent. American is the adjective for people from the USA, though you are correct that we should use United States or US when refering to the country, rather than America in the article, unless we are quoting from a source that uses that term, though I would note that Australia's continent is often called 'Australasia' which is pretty much the country name, though, a rather unique case there as Australia takes up the entire land mass.

As for the site, it says the first official use of the term 'canada' was in the terms Upper Canada and Lower Canada. We do use the term Canadian in the article, though if you really want us to be technical and correct, it should likely be 'upper canadian' and 'lower canadian'. I think as it is now it is just fine. We don't call them British, though, if your complaint is that they are referred to as a colony or subserviant to Britain then, well, I am afraid that is because they were. At the very least until Dominion Status and up to..I think it was one of the Balfour Declerations. Narson (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I proved my point when someone got a little bent out of shape when I questioned the usage of America to refer to the USA, since I was technically correct too. I am not going to argue continent definitions. Having the Canadian Colonial groups and institutions listed as such is just as important as say listing State Militias that refused to fight. To my original point and for true NPOV and historical Balance...you must list both the Burning of York including the Parliament Buildings as well as the later Burning of Washington and the White House which was clearly in retaliation and was planned as such. You could list them as the Parliament of Upper Canada at that would be correct. See here http://www.gov.on.ca/ont/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cs/.ce/7_0_A/.s/7_0_252/_s.7_0_A/7_0_252/_l/en?docid=004690#York

During the War of 1812-1814, on April 27, 1813 the Americans attacked with a fleet of fourteen ships via the York Harbour. The courthouse and parliament buildings were looted, and then burned down.

Thehighlndr (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you restate the point you think you proved?Zebulin (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While I will not support trying to make Canada a co-begilergent (500,000) colonist across all of the occcuiped area, it was part of the United Kingdom and as such was part of the Empire in the war. Now that being said, I do think the burning of York should be included and you are most certainly welcome to add it just make sure you cite it and keep it to the facts. Tirronan (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

War on the Great Lakes

Sackets Harbor, NY was critical to the American victory on the Great Lakes. As it had a protected harbor on Lake Ontario, it was here that the US Navy established its headquarters and base of operations on the Great Lakes. It established Navy Point, where nearly 3000 men built eleven warships in record time. The warships were the strength of the US fleet on the Great Lakes. Oliver Perry reported to the commander at Sackets Harbor.--Parkwells 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Burning of the Washington Naval Yards

It would seem we have excellent sources on this event in the letters of the Sec of the Navy (US) to Congress reporting on losses action and damage and I would propose that we use that to expand that section thereby. I submit that the section of the area listing 1 frigate destroyed to 1 frigate 1 sloop of war. Please note that the Frigate is alternately called Essex and Columbia, of note the Sloop of war was the Argus, Further note that the material for 1 74 gun Ship of the line was also destroyed

Commodore Thomas Tingey to Secretary of the Navy Jones Navy Yard Washtn: 18th Octr: 1814

Sir

On a review of the consequences which emanated from the retreat of our Army, and the entrance of that of the enemy into this city, on the 24th: of August last; so far as relates to this Establishment--I respectfully submit the following general statement.

After receiving repeated contradictory reports relative to the strength and position of the enemy, during the afternoon and evening of that day--at 20 minutes past 8 PM I received incontestible proof (by Captn. Creighton and Mr. M: Booth, my clerk, both of whom had been voluntarily active to obtain me positive information) that, the enemy was in complete possession of the city; having themselves been within the range of, and exposed to the fire of his musketry.

The boats for our conveyance from the yard, being stationed according to order, we immediately repaired down the yard; applying fire to the trains leading to the storehouses--the principal of which were almost instantly in irresistable flame.

Advancing toward the boats, those to the new frigate Essex, and to the Sloop of War Argus were touched, and they also immediately enveloped in a sheet of inextinguishable fire.

From a momentary impulse, and faint hope, of recovering the new schooner Lynx, I directed her not to be fired, and have the satisfaction to say that, by an almost miraculous escape she is still "ours."

The frigate Essex's hull, in the shipwright's department was very near complete, her bottom ready for coppering, and she could have been launched in ten days; her masts and spars were nearly finished--with timber sufficient on the wharf to complete them--all her blocks, dead-eyes, and the major part of her gun carriages ready-- Two suits of her heavy sails, and nearly the same quantity of her others were finished in the sail-loft ready for bending her standing rigging &c; fitted in the rigging-loft, and sufficient running rigging in store, for her complete equipment, her largest boats nearly ready for launching all her water casks and every material of cooper-work ready to go on board.

The Sloop of War Argus, lay at the wharf, with all her armament and equipment on board--except her sails which were in the sail-loft, and her provisions in the stores, and therein consumed--and except her powder which had not been shipped.

A large quantity of timber, plank, knees &c, were in different parts of the yard, and the seventy-four gun-ship timber, stored in the appropriate sheds, all fell a prey to the devouring element. Also, one large and one smaller row galley--both arm'd, rigged and prepared for service; and three heavy armed scows, with their guns &c, on board also ready.

The buildings destroyed, by the fire from the frigate &c were, the Mast-shed, and timber-shed, the joiners & boat-builders shops, and mould loft--all the Offices--the medical store--the plumbers and smiths shops, and block-makers shop--the saw-mill & block mill, with their whole apparatus, tools and machinery--the building for the steam engine, and all the combustible parts of it's machinery and materials; the rigging loft--the apartments for the master, and the boatswain of the yard, with all their furniture--the gun carriage makers and painters shops, with all the materials and tools therein at the time: also the hulls of the old frigates Boston, New York and General Greene.

The store-houses first fired were the Provision stores Gunners' & Ordnance store--Cordage store and sail [loft] which with all their perishable contents were cons[ume]d.

The Navy Storekeeper's detail issuing store, containing in its different apartments, a large quantity of new canvas, twine, lines, bunting and colours--together with all our stocks of mathematical instruments, and nautical apparatus appertaining to navigation--ship chandlery tools, nails, oils, paints &c: had escaped through the night the effect of the fire but was fired by the Enemy on the succeeding morning the 25th: and entirely consumed with all it's contents--as were also the coopers shop, two small frame timber sheds--and that in which our tar, pitch, rozin &c, were deposited.

The general loss of our papers, prevents the possibility of forming a just estimate of the loss in the mechanical departments, heretofore enumerated. Of that, relative to the stores on hand, in the Navy store keepers peculiar charge, it is presumed a tolerably accurate estimate may be form'd; and will be the subject of a future communication, which shall be transmitted, as soon as it is possible to effect.

In my return to the yard on the 26th: I had the mortification to observe that, the provisions which had been laded on board the old gun-boat No: 140 (and with which she had grounded, in endeavoring to get out of the branch on the 24th) had become a prey to numerous unauthorized persons, some of whom however instantly offered to deliver up all in their possession, which was subsequently done--but several barrels are yet to be accounted for.

A subject of still greater regret is, the loss of upward of 200 barrels of powder, which were wantonly & unauthorizedly taken out of the Magazine, and chiefly thrown into the water--the cause of which however, being under investigation, by a Court Martial on the Corporal of the Marine-guard then there; I forbear to enlarge on the subject as my feelings would dictate. I have the honor to be very respectfully Sir Your Obedt. Servt.

Thos: Tingey

---

Commodore Thomas Tingey to Secretary of the Navy Jones Navy Yard Washtn: 9th: Novr: 1814.

Sir

I have the honor to transmit you herewith, a general statement of the moveable articles at this Establishment on the 24th: of August last, previous to the entrance of the enemy into this city; together with the cost or estimated value of those materials at that time--the value of those recovered since the fire of the yard--and a statement of the real loss, resulting therefrom.

This business has been much delayed, from the want of data, to ascertain all the particulars lost, and from the daily difference by accumulation, in collecting the incombustible articles from the ruins of the warehouses &c: from whence more is expected to be obtained yet, which will be instantly reported when ascertain'd, together with any omissions, which it is probable have been made; though it is believed, if any, only to an inconsiderable amount.

I am not yet in possession of the calculations of the Artist, who was referred to, for the value of the wood and interior work of the several buildings destroyed, and therefore defer any report on the damage of the brick or stone work, and of all other immoveable matter, until I have that most material information, as it respects the buildings. I have the honor to be very respectfully Sir Yr. Obedt. Servt.

Thos: Tingey

---

[Enclosure]

Recapitulation Cost or Estimated value Real loss Loss Recovery No. 1. Frigate Columbia $116,123.05 $10,432.-- $105,691.05

  "  2. Sloop of War Argus 75,000.-- 10,186.55 64,813.45 
  "  3. One large Row Galley 4,500.-- 1,477.47 3,022.53 
  "  4. Two smaller Ditto 6,000.--  722.80 5,277.20 
  "  5. One armed Scow 1,610.54 955.87 654.67 
  "  6. One ditto do. 1,096.27 586.67 509.60 
  "  7. Gun Boats, row boats &c 6,553.34 5,773.34 780.-- 
  "  8. Boat-builders shop 2,962.98 " " " 2,962.98 
  "  9. Blacksmiths & Plumbers do. 4,532.80 1,969.50 2,563.30 
  "  10. Coopers shop &c 7,689.75 2,854.04 4,835.71 
  "  11. Gun carriage makers do. 525.-- " " " 525.-- 
  "  12. Painters shop 869.97 15.-- 854.97 
  "  13. Blockmakers shop 1,610.-- " " " 1,610.-- 
  "  14. Medical store 2,679.84 " " " 2,679.84 
  "  15. Ordnance stores &c 18,769.90 " " " 18,769.90 
  "  16. Naval stores, cordage &c 78,262.25  " " " 78,262.25 
  "  17. Copper, Iron, Lead &c 49,965.27 42,522.40 7,442.87 
  "  18. Navy Storekeepers stores 20,431.77 2,921.89 17,509.88 
  "  19. Ordnance, small arms &c 173,284.97 162,926.22 10,358.75 
  "  20. Provisions & Contingencies 46,962.04 4,071.44  42,890.60 
  "  21. Timber, Plank, Knees &c 45,000.--  " " " 45,000.-- 
  "  22. Anchors 12,400.94 12,400.94 " " " 
  "  23. Miscellaneous articles 1,380.03 648.85 731.18 
 

---

 $678,210.71 $260,464.98 $417,745.73 

---

Commodore Thomas Tingey to Secretary of the Navy Jones Navy Yard Washtn: 12th Novr: 1814

Sir

I have the honor to transmit you herewith, an estimate of the damage sustain'd in the buildings of this yard, by the fire of the 24th & 25th of August last with that of the materials and value of the parts saved-- so an estimate of the cost of rebuilding such particulars, as in my judgement may be necessary for future operations; offering such observations thereon, as have appeared to me forcibly applicable--leaving to your better judgement, whether the whole may be necessary at this time, or which shall be first commenc'd on, in the event of the repairs being ordered: the whole is most respectfully submitted. I have the honor to be very respectfully Sir Your Obedt. Servt.

Thos: Tingey

---

[Enclosure]

Recapitulation Estimated value Real loss Loss Recovery No. 1. Detail issuing store $6,972.80 $252.-- $6,720.80

  "  2. Cordage store & sail loft 12,780.81 312.-- 12,468.81 
  "  3. Ordnance Store &c. 16,664.10 820.-- 15,844.10 
  "  4. Timber shed, Mould loft &c. 23,776.94  2000.-- 21,776.94 
  "  5. Rigging loft, guncarriage shop &c. 15,279.35 6480.-- 8,799.35 
  "  6. Blacksmiths shop &c &c. 16,210.81 5102.-- 11,108.81 
  "  7. Sawmill, Enginehouse &c. 17,850.52 5010.-- 12,840.52 
  "  8. Blockmakers shop. 2,091.40 482.-- 1,609.40 
  "  9. Coopers shop, and old buildings 3,756.80 " " " 3,756.80 
 

---

 $115,383.53 $20,458.-- $94,925.53 
 

Thus the aggregate amount of damage to the buildings by the fire, would appear to be $94,925. 53 From which, the amount of the following enumerated incombustible particulars being saved, may justly be deducted vizt. Iron straps, and bolts to the Girders, and roofs, of the several buildings--not less than $2000.-- Hinges &c: and sheet iron for roofing Ditto 1500.-- 3,500.-- Making the real loss, sustain'd in the buildings $91,425.53

---

NOTE: RN = Royal Navy.

Source: Crawford, Michael J., Christine F. Hughes, Charles E. Brodine, Jr., and Carolyn M. Stallings eds. The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History, Vol. III, 1814-1815, Chesapeake Bay, Northern Lakes, and Pacific Ocean. (Washington, DC: Naval Historical Center, 2002): 205-228, 311-323.

Related Resources:

         War of 1812
         Washington Navy Yard History 

---

22 May 2007