Talk:War of 1812/Mobile

[ Moved from Talk:War of 1812 ]

Mobile; US gained territory: Question

Shouldn't the fact that the US acquired fairly important Gulf Coast territory from Britain's Spanish allies be mentioned in the section on why the the US "won"? I'm not arguing here that a particular side did win, just wondering if a highly pertinent fact mentioned elsewhere in the article could be repeated and placed in perspective as number "4" (or earlier) in a clause or sentence in the already existing section on the rationale for labeling the war an American victory. In fact that the US was the only combatant to gain territory by force of arms in the war is such a salient point that its exclusion is astonishing. A proposed edit (precise placement to be determined) might go something like: "; seizing the Gulf Coast port of Mobile from Britain's Spanish allies, becoming the only combatant to gain territory by force of arms in the war;" VictorD7 (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You would need a source that draws that conclusion. TFD (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Source what, precisely? That the US seized Mobile? That it permanently lost no territory of its own through conquest? Those facts already appear in the article. Or do you mean find a source in which someone who can be called an “historian” specifically ties the territorial expansion to “winning” the war? The existing section sources each claim separately, so presumably the current conceptualization isn’t taken wholesale from any particular source, but has been constructed piecemeal, meaning there’s room for expansion. Surely there’s an author somewhere who’s mentioned Mobile while using the words “won the war”, if those exact words are required for inclusion in the section. I’ll look when I get time. If anyone else already knows of such a reference then providing it would be appreciated.

I know Remini essentially says as much in Andrew Jackson Vol. 1, though I’m not sure he ever uses the aforementioned exact words:

“It is generally agreed that the War of 1812 ended with no side having lost or gained—that the peace treaty established a status quo ante bellum. Actually a status quo was not established. In the eyes of the British a true status quo would have restored New Orleans and Mobile to Spain. Since Britain did not conquer these areas and the United States continued to hold them they were, in a manner of speaking, acquired as a result of the War of 1812.

Especially Mobile. Mobile was seized after hostilities commenced—a good year after. A real status quo would have required the restoration of this territory to Spain. By keeping it, the United States expanded the nation’s boundaries.”

http://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Jackson-Course-American-1767-1821/dp/0801859115 VictorD7 (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

New Orleans was part of the Louisiana Purchase-the United States in no way gained it as a result of the war of 1812. And as Spain never supported Britain militarily during the war of 1812,and there was no declaration of war between the Spain and the US,any Spanish territory taken during the War of 1812 would in fact be an invasion of neutral territory. Rwenonah (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Spain was politically all mixed up but it was fighting with Britain against France.The British army moved into West Florida in 1814 and supplied hostile Indians, so it was no longer "neutral" territory. Indeed, Spain had just a trivial military presence and Spain no was not in actual control of West Florida and it had become a base by American enemies. For details see David Stephen Heidler; Jeanne T. Heidler (2004). Encyclopedia of the War Of 1812. Naval Institute Press. p. 188. Rjensen (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Remini's point on New Orleans is that the British didn't recognize the Louisiana Purchase, but my primary point deals with Mobile, which, unlike New Orleans, wasn't physically taken by the US until well into the War of 1812. Wars don't just include nation states, much less parties that formally declare war, but Spain was most certainly a British ally, and that a nation emerged from a war geographically larger than before is highly relevant to any discussion about who won or lost. Spain did use its Gulf Coast territory to host British forces recruiting, equipping, and organizing Indian attacks on Americans. The Spanish governor of Pensacola eventually invited Edward Nicolls and his Royal Marines to base there, and the unsuccessful joint British/Indian attempt to retake Mobile in 1814 was launched from Spanish territory. VictorD7 (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"The governor of Pensacola reluctantly allowed"[David Stephen Heidler; Jeanne T. Heidler (2004). Encyclopedia of the War Of 1812. Naval Institute Press. p. 188.] the British to use Pensacola as a base(logical,when confronted with a superior force. Spain was most decidedly not fighting against the US in the War of 1812. It is not in the combatant box,and the source provided above doe not show Spain as a serious participant in the war. in fact,it shows quite the opposite. If Spain is to be counted as a combatant in the war,why not Prussia,Russia or Austria. Or even Piedmont or Sicily? Or any of Britains' other Napoleonic allies?. Spain ceded both the Floridas to the US later,as part of the Adams-Onis Treaty,in 1821. The US gained Mobile as a result of this. Rwenonah (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that the current section already mentions "Napoleon" in the rationale for proclaiming British victory, and the irrelevance of being a "serious" combatant here, the key word you quoted is "allowed". Regardless of motivation, Spain certainly did fight against the US. From your own source:

“Spain was officially neutral in the conflict between the United States and Great Britain. It continued, however, to rely on British economic and military assistance to the Indians in the US southwest in an attempt to protect the Floridas…..Governor of West Florida Don Mateo Gonzalez Manrique provided the Creeks with munitions, with the captain general of Cuba giving full approval. Indeed, part of a regiment to reinforce Pensacola had been sent from Cuba…Great Britain decided to provide military support to the Creeks several months after the Spanish decision to support them.“

You had anti-American Indians, British, and Spanish troops all working and organizing together, and all three are in the “combat box” on Wiki’s own Battle of Pensacola (1814) page. Jackson demanded that the Spanish order the British to leave and they refused. They could have simply capitulated to the American force, but they apparently felt they did have a choice. The Spanish didn’t put up much of a fight, but they did fire on the Americans and sustain casualties. What’s more, from Remini….

“In fact Spanish representatives claimed to have been assured that all of Louisiana and West Florida would be restored to Spain at the end of the war. As late as April 1815 Spain, assuming Pakenham had defeated Jackson at New Orleans, asked Britain to retain what had been occupied—despite the Treaty of Ghent—and return it to her.”

He cites Spanish government correspondence as his primary source for those claims. After driving out the British Jackson returned control of Pensacola to the Spanish governor and left, but Mobile had already been annexed by the US long before the Adams-Onis Treaty, was physically seized from a Spanish garrison during the war, and was permanently possessed by the US after that. When Spain finally recognized reality is beside the point. In fact, while Mobile was the immediate prize, one could argue that America's victories in the region against the Spanish, British, and Indians made eventual Spanish cession of all of Florida inevitable. Regardless, it’s preposterous to pretend that these Gulf Coast actions were unrelated to the War of the 1812, or to ignore the fact that the US was larger after the war than before, especially when the British themselves attempted to retake the ground in question. VictorD7 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

VictorD7, how we report on how won or lost a war depends on how informed opinion sees it. As your source says, "It is generally agreed that the War of 1812 ended with no side having lost or gained". Obviously we may agree or disagree with general opinion. One could say that the US lost because it failed to conquer Canada. As Brock said, "“We may teach the enemy this lesson: A country defended by free men devoted to the cause of their king and constitution can never be conquered…” TFD (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

But then my source, a very informed opinion, in fact a man appointed Historian of the United States House of Representatives, goes on to explain why that misconception is wrong, by citing America's territorial expansion through the war. I am proposing that such an opinion (no matter how well supported by facts) merely be included in the "minority" category, however, so it's not like I'm seeking to delete what's said to be "generally agreed" in the text. The parochial Canadian view you describe is already included in the "minority" opinion section on the other side. Side note - It's amusing to hear someone talk about "free men" being devoted to their "king" against the sinister forces of republicanism in a war started by kidnapping and enslaving sailors. VictorD7 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is your opinion and not allowed per synthesis. BTW the US always finds a casus belli, in this case the conscription of British sailors who were naturalized Americans into the British navy. Madison also tried to "kidnap and enslave" US citizens in prosecuting the war - it was called the draft. TFD (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's the source's informed opinion that the US expanded its territory during the war. It's also fact. Whether that warrants inclusion in the segment on historians' diverse opinions on who won the war, or maybe elsewhere as a qualifier in sentences simply commenting on territorial changes, is a separate issue, but it seems like there's already a degree of synthesis on the page. BTW, if Madison had tried stopping foreign ships at gun point, boarding them, and "drafting" their citizens into military service, those countries would have been outraged too. American fury at the high handed practice was very real. It was also a sloppy process, with sometimes even US citizens who had never been British being impressed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a fact that the US gained territory (from an enemy of the UK) but your source does not express the opinion that this constituted victory. And the United States does not forget deserters who obtain foreign nationality, so it was hypocritical to hold the UK to a higher standard. In fact the US conscripts foreign nationals. But the first casualty of war is the truth. TFD (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, like the lie that all those impressed were British "deserters" (or even British born), or that armed seizures of foreign ships at sea were a good way to go about filling out the navy's manpower. The British were fighting alongside and working with their Spanish allies at the time, as has been repeatedly sourced here, but even if that wasn't true it wouldn't change the fact that US territory expanded through the war. The source I cited should suffice for making this point somewhere in the article, even if a different source would be required to add it to the section on whom historians say "won", a possibility I acknowledged from the beginning. VictorD7 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

History is littered with false or misleading claims made to justify war - the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the WMDs. And what nationality were the Americans who were drafted into fighting for independence in 1776? But back to your point. If the conquest of Spanish territory could be seen as victory over the UK by the US, then you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

And the internet is full of conspiracy theories and low brow, one liner, propagandistic distortions. History is also full of accurately described and straightforward outrages that cause wars. You don't seem to have a point there. Americans were sometimes drafted by their own states during the Revolution, but the Continental Congress didn't have the means to do anything like that. For that matter neither did Madison during the War of 1812. American combat troops were overwhelmingly volunteers. Back to the real issue, arguably the US territorial acquisition could support a claim of victory over the British since they were allies with Spain and attempted to retake the land in question, but that's not necessary for mentioning the fact in a segment dedicated to the position that "both the US and Britain won the war", with the Indians proclaimed as losers. Wars can have more than two sides and one winner, and one can certainly argue that the Spanish lost too. Can we at least agree that the Gulf Coast actions were part of the War of 1812?

My original question hasn't been explicitly answered, but the impression I'm getting from replies so far is that either no editors here have thought about the issue before or no one knows of an historian who's mentioned the territorial acquisition in their rationale for proclaiming US victory. For the record, if such a source is produced, would you object to the proposed edit? VictorD7 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you find a secondary source that comments on such a claim, then we can determine the degree of acceptance it has and whether to include it per WP:WEIGHT. It is not that it did not occur to other editors before but that it did not occur to anyone writing sources. I suggest we suspend this conversation until you have found sources. TFD (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course since we're discussing "minority" opinion the bar for acceptance shouldn't be too high. On the off chance that you don't remember everything that's been written in every book or article about the War of 1812, I'll keep the discussion open for others to contribute. VictorD7 (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

During the early part of the war Britain's so-called "Spanish allies" were ruled by Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother. After 1814 they had a Bourbon king but he was too busy trying avoid being deposed to take any role in the Americas. In 1820 he agreed to sell Florida (including Mobile) to the US government for $5 million. The Americans may have occupied Mobile earlier but they paid for it eventually ratrher than "winning" it as spoils of war. Dabbler (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

By that logic the US simply bought the Mexican Cession rather than acquiring it through a victorious war. Such deals are influenced, indeed often dictated, by the facts on the ground. The US acquired the rest of Florida later, but obviously already possessed Mobile, regardless of the Spanish government's nominal position. VictorD7 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

His point was that at the time the US seized Mobile, it was controlled by Spain, which was an enemy of Britain. While it could be claimed that the US defeated Spain, it was not at war with them. TFD (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I was clearly addressing his claim that later payment settlement somehow means the US didn't take the territory when it took it. The other point is irrelevant. Joseph was a short lived puppet who couldn't even control Spain itself, much less its greater empire. The Spanish revolted against the French occupation long before the War of 1812 started, fighting side by side with the British, and ultimately kicked Napoleon's forces out. Joseph abdicated in 1813. The British assured their Spanish allies that they would seize and return North American territory to them, and they made unsuccessful attempts to retake it from the Americans. It would be absurd to pretend the Gulf Coast actions aren't part of the War of 1812. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misinterpret my statements and claim that you know what I was thinking when from a straightforward reading, you seem to have misinterpreted me completely. If you think I said "that later payment settlement somehow means the US didn't take the territory when it took it" then that is your interpretation not what I actually said. I stated that the King of Spain in 1812-13 was Napoleoin's brother and the de facto head of a state which was still in a state of war with Britain. Spanish regular forces were partly supporting him with the aid of French troops and partly opposing him (especially in the colonies) and there was a guerrilla insurrection in Spain which partially aided the British there and partly was opposed to all invaders of whichever side. Spanish forces in Florida and Mobile took no part in the War of 1812. Under force majeure they allowed British forces to briefly base themselves there and then American forces occupied the territory without declaring war on Spain. The Spanish government eventually decided that they could not evict the Americans and to recoup something from the American occupation and to shore up their domestic finances sold the territory including unoccupied Florida to the US government. Please locate any source that says the United States won the territory in a war with Spain and if you can find a source that says the Spanish in North America were in any way an active ally of Britain, I would like to see that too. Dabbler (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Some further reading around indicates to me that the Americans seized the Mobile area and may have annexed it in 1812/13. They then abandoned the area for a while and moved back in August 1814 when the British made an unsuccessful attack on Fort Bowyer in September 1814 and were driven off. They then made their attack on New Orleans which resulted in the lost battle there. They then regrouped and captured Fort Bowyer in February 1815. They learned of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent shortly afterwards and evacuated the area which was then re-occupied by the American forces. Later Spain and the US made arrangements to cede that whole area to the US with the payment of $5 million. This is already covered in less detail in the article. See War_of_1812#Alabama. Dabbler (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mobile was occupied by the US in 1813 and was never abandoned. It was made part of the Mississippi Territory at the time and in 1817 was made part of the Alabama Territory. The US never paid Spain $5 million for Florida. What was agreed to in the Adams-Onis_Treaty#Details_of_the_treaty was that the US government would cover the legal claims by US citizens against Spain up to the amount of $5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.206.187.141 (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I misinterpreted nothing. You claimed "The Americans may have occupied Mobile earlier but they paid for it eventually ratrher than "winning" it as spoils of war" (sic), the implication being that later payment means a territory wasn't won in war. As I illustrated with the Mexican Cession, postwar settlements (sometimes involving multiple treaties over several years cleaning up the mess) aren't uncommon. You just acknowledged that Spain was forced to drop its claim to Mobile because the Americans physically occupied it, therefore the physical seizure of the territory was decisive. Whether Spain and the US "officially" declared war on each other is irrelevant. There was no "official" declaration of war against the various Indian tribes either, yet they were major combatants, and many wars in history have been fought without anything approaching an "official" declaration of war. The Spanish most certainly were part of the War of 1812. They were combatants in the Battle of Pensacola (1814), fighting alongside the British and Creek Indians against the Americans. They weren't victims of circumstance who had no choice but to help the British. They helped the British because their interests aligned. Indeed, as a source I already quoted from says, the Spanish were arming the Creek Indians fighting the US even before the British were. The Spanish also fired on the Americans who expelled the British from Pensacola, sustaining battle casualties in the process.

Quoting from the The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 (Spencer C. Tucker, 2012, page 479):

“The port of Mobile, Alabama, on the Gulf Coast, was the scene of three battles during the War of 1812 that took place during April 11-14, 1813; September 12-115, 1814; and February 8-12, 1815……

The first battle at Mobile occurred in the spring of 1813. Spanish Florida had been a principle objective of the southern War Hawks on the outbreak of the War in 1812……Mobile was the only permanent territorial gain for the United States during the War of 1812.”'

As the second largest port on the Gulf Coast at the time it was no trivial gain. See higher in the discussion for the other source I quoted saying that the British had told their Spanish allies they would restore the lost territory to them, though the British were unsuccessful in retaking it from the Americans. Also, quoted near the top of this discussion, Remini explicitly rejects the notion that a status quo ante bellum was established, pointing out that the US had increased its territory. Your characterization of the Peninsular War is irrelevant. Multiple "Spanish" governments claimed legitimacy (Britain recognized Ferdinand VII as king), but the British worked with thousands of Spanish troops both inside and outside of Spain, including in West Florida, and the two nations were certainly allied after the French were driven out. Regardless, Mobile was a contested area in the War of 1812 and it ended up in American hands. VictorD7 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a source that says all of this means that the US won the war. TFD (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you responded to a tangential discussion of the substance involved. My op says "question" for a reason. I'm new to this page and trying to get a lay of the land. I don't remember all the details of the various subjective opinions I've read on the topic over the years, and I don't have immediate access to a library, though, as I said earlier, I hope to get the chance to seriously research this soon. But it's astonishing that one of the most salient points any person who has studied the war could cite to support an argument of US victory isn't included in the brief section on historians' opinions. I hoped for feedback along the lines of "that is mentioned in the page's existing sources, and it probably should be explicitly spelled out in that section, so let's add it", or "that's a legitimate point and I know of writers with that opinion; here they are...", or even "I've scoured every work ever written about the War of 1812 and absolutely none of them cite America's territorial expansion as one of the rationales for proclaiming US victory." The last one, if true, might reflect the sad state of the field more than anything else. All that said, setting the "who won?" section aside, the sources provided here do warrant a stronger mention of the territorial gain, beyond the scant words currently devoted to it in the article. Possibly in the info box and/or a line in the intro. VictorD7 (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not "scour" history books to find unique interpretations but read the main texts which explain what the mainstream views are and then we report then per WP:WEIGHT. meco provided a welcome message on your talk page. Click on the links and find out how articles are written. If you do not like the policies then go to their pages and persuade others to change them. Or go to a website dedicated to revisionist history. If you have no sources, then your postings are a waste of time. TFD (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh drop the attitude. I know how pages are written. I asked a question, I didn't make an edit. The "scour" line was an extreme hypothetical example that would demonstrate someone had actually thought about the matter before and had a response worth making. Frankly you haven't demonstrated enough mastery of the topic to justify your number of replies here, but I appreciate your input. VictorD7 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the actual history, the British did recover the Spansih territories in February 1815, then they heard the war was over and evacuated. After the War of 1812 was over, the Americans reoccupyed the territory. Thus the territory was only gained after the war was over, not as a result of the war. This is all suspiciously close to OR on every side! Dabbler (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The British never retook Mobile. As the The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 says, Mobile was a "permanent territorial gain for the United States during the War of 1812." VictorD7 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It says in the article, "1,000 British troops won the Battle of Fort Bowyer on February 12, 1815. When news of peace arrived the next day, they abandoned the fort and sailed home." TFD (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Fort Bowyer isn't Mobile. It was built outside of Mobile by the Americans after they took the town. The US never lost possession of Mobile after it took it. I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a source, but it's quick and convenient in this case, and these comments are sourced:

"With Mobile Bay secured by British warships and Fort Bowyer now under British control, the remaining American forces in the area hurried to Mobile to prepare for the expected onslaught there. The British postponed the attack on Mobile itself when HMS Brazen arrived some two days later, carrying news that the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, had been signed on the previous Christmas Eve.[42][30] When news of ratification of the Treaty arrived, the British withdrew. The final attachment of Mobile to the United States was the only permanent exchange of territory during the War of 1812." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bowyer#Aftermath_2 VictorD7 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

a) One shouldn't use other wiki pages as a source,and that part of the page was unsourced. b)Mobile became part of the United States as a result of the later Adams-Onis Treaty (I've said it before,an I'll say it again) By your rationale,Manhattan Island could be called part of British territory before the Treaty of Westminster. Or the myriads of modern disputed regions,say the Aksai Chin, called part of the controlling country. c)Consensus is against you. And consensus always wins(in addition,wikipedia policy is to bow to consensus. Rwenonah (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use wiki pages as sources on the talk pages but not in articles. Mobile was annexed by the US after its capture in 1813 and before the Adams-Onis Treaty. In that treaty Spain merely recognized the fait accompli that Mobile was lost to the US. It decided to give East Florida to the US as well in return for the US relinquishing all US legal claims up to $5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.77.214 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the territory was not acquired due to fighting as a result of the declaration of the War of 1812 against Britain. It was seized from a non-combatant nation which took no active part in the War. It cannot be said to have been acquired from Britain, or its colonies. The British may have attempted to recover it for Spain but the War ended before that exercise could be brought to any conclusion either way. Basically an American land grab from a neutral country not spoils of war. Dabbler (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dabbler, I agree with this statement. I posted the unsigned previous statement as I had not intended to return to editing but I've changed my mind. I don't believe that the US acquisition of Mobile during the war is an indication of the US winning. I do however like to see historically accurate statements at least as far as that is possible. Dwalrus (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a board game. A war's results aren't bound by what's mentioned in a "Declaration of War". The Indian tribes weren't mentioned in the Declaration of War either, but they were affected by it, and many even appear in the page's "combat box". Certainly the long term impact on them is prominently featured on the page. Actually the Spanish not only actively armed forces fighting the Americans, hosted British troops, and allowed their territory to be used as a base of operations for attacks against the US, but Spanish troops engaged in direct violence against the Americans at the Battle of Pensacola, a battle counted among those in the War of 1812 in every source I've seen. Whether you see the US as an aggressor or not is irrelevant, as is the "official" status of a kingdom in chaos with a disputed throne half a world away. It would be wonderful if nations, tribes, and city states throughout history could have simply declared their own neutrality and compelled hostile armies to say "aw shucks" and go home, but that's not the way real life works. A huge percentage of combatants and participants in wars over the centuries have been unwilling ones. Of course the local Spanish weren't unwilling, innocent victims, and indeed Indians had been attacking Americans and fleeing to the safety of Spanish territory since long before the war, but that's beside the point. Many disparate elements were swept up in the fighting.

The "land grab" at Mobile was actually a border dispute. Washington saw it as asserting its rights under the Louisiana Purchase, with physical occupation becoming an urgent matter due to the ongoing war and Mobile's strategic location on America's vulnerable underbelly (which the British, indeed, would later try to exploit). So yes, the capture of Mobile was very much related to the Declaration of War. The timing wasn't a coincidence. The British tried to recapture it for their Spanish allies (and as an avenue for invasion of the American south) and failed. The "exercise" was brought to a conclusion: the war ended with it still in American hands and the British left.

The issue of whether all these sources are correct to include these actions as part of the War of 1812 (they are) and note that the US gained territorially from them is separate from the issue of how it impacts the discussion on who "won", though surely that one of the combatants grew in territory during the war isn't irrelevant to that discussion. Regardless, the current combat box lists "125 Choctaw" Indians who participated in the fighting against the Creek Indians, and rightly so. Why not list the garrison of 500 Spanish troops who fought the Americans at Pensacola, a battle where British troops were actually present? VictorD7 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

a - This is a talk page, not an article edit, and no contrary sources have been provided claiming the British retook Mobile (they didn't).

b - Mobile was US territory long before the treaty in the eyes of Washington (which annexed it), and was physically seized in the War of 1812, which in turn led to Spain dropping its claim and agreeing to a treaty settlement.

c - Consensus on what specifically? That the British retook Mobile? Nope. That the US didn't acquire Mobile until a treaty years later? Apparently not. In addition to multiple editors disputing you, multiple sources have been presented here that do as well.VictorD7 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

a) When did I ever say the British retook Mobile(high-five on getting that right-they didn't).

b)The territory did not legally become part of US territory until the later Adams-Onis Treaty ,a fact which you seem unable to comprehend. Did the British occupation of much of Wisconsin,Michigan and Ohio prior to the war make it British territory? No,Britain was clearly occupying the territory illegally.

c) Consensus seems(just from what I've seen on the rest of the page)to be that Mobile did not become part of the United States as a result of the War of 1812,as Spain was basically neutral.The occupation of Florida was basically an American attempt to take land from a non-participatory nation.

Rwenonah (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

a - You interjected into an exchange in which that false claim had just been made by multiple people and didn't specify what you were talking about.

b - In US eyes the territory was already American (so whose "law" are you talking about?) and these things are ultimately dictated by the facts on the ground anyway, a fact you seem unable to comprehend (I'm sure Genghis Khan would be disconcerted to hear that he actually hadn't conquered anything since his acts were illegal, and therefore didn't count). The British withdrew from the temporarily occupied territory you mention because external facts on the ground were overwhelming and they didn't want to continue a war with the US. Same with Allied territory held by the Germans at the end of WW1, or for that matter US territory held by the British at the end of the Revolution (note how Americans trace their nation's beginning to 1776, not 1783). What made the American seizure of territory originally held by Britain's Spanish allies different was that it was permanent.

c - I'd disagree, especially if you count the sources I've quoted as votes, but I have no intention of adding an edit without broad support, so it's sufficient to say that there's currently no consensus for change. Yet. VictorD7 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have conflated Mobile and Fort Bowyer, mea culpa. The Treaty of Ghent brought an end to the War of 1812 and it requires:

All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any slaves or other private property. And all archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public nature or belonging to private persons, which, in the course of the war, may have fallen into the hands of the officers of either party, shall be, as far as may be practicable, forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and persons to whom they respectively belong.

The Americans did not return the territory around Mobile to Spain and the British did not protest this as a breach of the treaty because that land seizure was not part of the War as agreed by the combatants who signed the treaty. Dabbler (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

re the statement the British did not protest this as a breach of the treaty. No. the treaty said nothing about Mobile. It refers to all places taken by either party from the other during the war and that leaves out Mobile (which was taken from Spain in 1813 and has remained continuously in American hands ever since --although the British did control Ft Bowyer a few miles away for a few days in Feb. 1815) Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The treaty was a bilateral negotiation between the US and British, and a single treaty isn't necessarily definitive of a war's entire outcome. Some wars are followed by no treaties, but still have decisive results. Others are followed by multiple treaties between various participants that clean up the mess. The Adams-Onis treaty arguably falls into that category. The US signed its own separate treaty with Germany following WW1, and even a second post War of 1812 treaty with Britain in 1818 that did things like clarify outstanding boundary issues and give fishing rights off the Canadian coast to the Americans, because the Treaty of Ghent didn't even address all the issues between those two countries, much less other participants. The treaty did, however, call for a restoration to ante bellum status for Britain's tribal allies, which was ignored by the US (and arguably impossible given the new facts on the ground), and the British didn't complain about that either, because they recognized the war had changed the situation and they wanted to maintain good relations with Washington. Sometimes part or all of a treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on. If the Kellogg-Briand Pact had meant anything we would have enjoyed continuous world peace since 1928.

The fact remains that 500 Spanish troops are in the combat box for Wikipedia's article on the Battle of Pensacola, a battle counted as part of the War of 1812 in every source I've seen. Why aren't they included in this page's combat box? VictorD7 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"The battle had forced the British out of Pensacola and left the Spanish in control, angered by the British, who had fled in such a hurry once Jackson's force had attacked, for their destruction of the fortifications and the removal of part of the Spanish garrison." Note-the Spanish did not retreat with the British,as one might think an ally would do,and instead remained in control of the town.They clearly were not major participants,and one wonders whether they fought at all. Britain basically occupied the Florida territories themselves,not reinforced an ally. Britain may have just been furthering its own interests in the florid as.Rwenonah (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Though British behavior eventually made relations rocky, Manrique had agreed to allow the British to base there, and refused Jackson's offer, delivered by messenger, to surrender and give permission for Americans to garrison the forts until relieved by Spanish troops. There were 500 Spanish troops and only 100 British troops. The Americans captured most of the Spanish soldiers when they captured the town. "...The attack went ahead nonetheless and was met with resistance in the center of town by a line of infantry supported by a battery. However, the Americans charged and captured the battery.[15]

Governor Manrique appeared with a white flag and agreed to surrender on any terms Jackson put forward if only he would spare the town. Fort San Miguel was surrendered on November 7, but Fort San Carlos, which lay 14 miles to the west, remained in British hands.[16]

Jackson planned to capture the fort by storm the next day, but it was blown up and abandoned before Jackson could move on it and the remaining British fled Pensacola[17] along with the British squadron (comprising HMS Sophie (18 guns), HMS Childers (18 guns; Capt. Umfreville) & HMS Seahorse (38 guns; Capt. Gordon).)[18] A number of Spanish accompanied the retreating British forces. [19] [20] [21] [22]

Many Spanish did leave with the British. As for who was fighting in the town, from John Henry Eaton and John Reid's The Life of Major General Andrew Jackson (page 148): "One company, from the third regiment of infantry, with two field pieces, formed the advance, led by Captain Laval, who fell, severely wounded, while, at the head of his command, he was charging a Spanish battery, formed in the street. …… Captain Laval’s party, although deprived of their leader, moved forward, and, at the point of the bayonet, took possession of the battery in their front. So quickly was this effected, that the Spaniards had it in their power to make but three fires, before they were forced to abandon it. From behind the houses and garden fences, were constant volleys of musketry discharged, until the regulars arriving met the Spaniards, and drove them from their positions. The governor, panic struck, trembling for the safety of his city, and remembering the declaration of the General that, if driven to extremes, he should not attempt to restrain, or hold himself responsible for his enraged soldiers, hastened, bearing a flag in his hand, to find the commander, and seek to stay the carnage. He was met by Colonels Williamson and Smith, at the head of the dismounted troops, when, with faltering speech, he entreated that mercy might be extended, and promised to consent to whatever terms might be demanded."

Not much of a battle, but strategically important and both Americans and Spanish sustained casualties. It ended when Manrique surrendered. The officially "neutral" Spanish had tried to put up more of a fight against 3,000 Americans than they had against 100 British. Whatever damage could have been inflicted on the town by the Royal Navy's guns could also have been inflicted by a few thousand infantry, except the latter could have prevented people from escaping if so inclined. Underlying all this is the alignment of Spanish and British interests. VictorD7 (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

RS are unanimous in leaving Spain out. The Spanish government hardly existed, was ignorant of these events, & certainly did not give any orders whatever for war with US. The local commanders in Florida were acting on their own; combined with the small numbers involved it makes the case for leaving them out. The government has to make war, not local junior officials. Rjensen (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree totally with Rjensen.

It probably felt like the Spanish were participating to the men they shot. No, there are all types of wars....insurrections, civil wars, feudal disputes within a larger polity, multifaceted tribal conflicts, etc., and varying degrees of intensity. Regardless, a provincial governor is government (especially when there's no clear monarch in charge), and his 500 man garrison is a larger force than the aforementioned 125 Choctaws who are currently listed in the info box. Given the strategic impact of the British using and then being deprived of Pensacola as a base of operations, and the small numbers of armies involved generally in the war, it wouldn't be unreasonable to include them. "Spain" may not have joined the war, but a corner of its empire more than dipped its toes into the conflict, and multiple RSs cited here tie the war to its territorial losses on the continent. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Spain never declared war or was declared war on. The Spanish found themselves under attack,and logically responded by fighting back. They were,so to speak,caught in the middle-between the British(who were occupying the Pensacola,and had forced the Spanish to let them in with superior force) and the Americans(who were attacking). This does not make them a full-scale military participant,especially as the Americans didn't even force th large number of supposed enemies to leave,but left them in control of the town."The battle had forced the British out of Pensacola and left the Spanish in control, angered by the British, who had fled in such a hurry once Jackson's force had attacked, for their destruction of the fortifications and the removal of part of the Spanish garrison.(Hyde,pg. 97)"Rwenonah (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Straw man ^. Not every participant in every war joins through formal declaration, nor needs to be a "full-scale military participant" for some of its forces to earn a mention in things like articles and info boxes. The Spanish "found themselves" under attack because they had invited the British to base there in operations against the Americans, and indeed had been arming hostile Indians attacking Americans themselves. I guess you missed the part about the Spanish violently resisting American requests while peacefully agreeing to accommodate a far smaller British force. Both sides talked of preserving Spanish "neutrality", and to some degree this was a sincere concern at various levels of government, creating pressure on each side to avoid antagonizing the other too overtly and inviting a broader response, but it doesn't change the hostile actions of the Spanish in Florida, particularly at the Battle of Pensacola, nor can the fact that the British were helping their Spanish allies fight Napoleon throughout this time be ignored. Jackson left the Spanish in control at Pensacola because the place no longer had immediate strategic value, and because the British threat to the rest of the Gulf Coast meant he had more pressing matters to attend to. VictorD7 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Spain--the nation-- was not in any way involved, except that lone local officer with a few hundred soldiers, without contact or control by his government, made erratic, inconclusive and unimportant decisions that add up to very little, in the eyes of the RS. The Infobox cannot mention Spain because that means the Spanish government(s) that did not make any decisions. Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this view. In all of my reading on this war I've never come across a reliable source that claims that Spain should be considered an active ally of Britain in the War of 1812. Frank Lawrence Owsley, Jr. in his book Struggle for the Borderlands: The Creek War and the Battle of New Orleans, 1812-1815 points out that the local Spanish officer, González Manrique, "was acting on his own initiative." He went on to say: "He did not report to his superior, Ruiz Apodaca, that he had requested British aid; instead, he said that he could not prevent the British landing."Dwalrus (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The info box mentions "Creek allies" though, not to be confused with hostile "Creek Red Sticks", and numerous other tribes of varying levels of involvement. It also mentions "125 Choctaw", so I'm not sure why 500 Spanish troops couldn't be mentioned (a nontrivial sum in that war), along with "Spain", "Spanish West Florida", or whatever qualifiers are deemed appropriate to describe a provincial governor with authority over a large chunk of the Gulf Coast. His actions were only ultimately "unimportant" in that they failed. The British were evicted forever, the anti-American Indians expected to serve as a permanent buffer were crushed, and the Spanish position was seriously eroded along the Gulf Coast.

Remini, a RS, thinks the Battle of Pensacola, and therefore the Spanish actions that brought it on, were important. From Andrew Jackson (pages 242-243): "Thus, for strategic reasons, Jackson decided to give the whole thing back to Gonzalez Manrique and return to the United States. His mission was a total success. He told James Monroe that he believed he had "broken up the hot bed of the Indian war" and convinced the Spaniards that the United States would no longer tolerate violations of their neutrality that jeopardized American safety. He also felt he had seriously disrupted the British plan of operations against the southern section of the nation.

The invasion of Florida and the capture of Pensacola was a strategically sound move. His actions sealed off potential avenues of invasion, avenues that made more military sense than a frontal assault up the Mississippi River to New Orleans. A dash from Mobile or somewhere in East Florida, across Louisiana to a point above the crescent city, was so obvious a move that even Jackson with his limited knowledge of warfare could apprehend it. Such a dash, if successful, would cut off New Orleans from supplies--particularly with a British fleet patrolling the Gulf; the city would be defenseless and easily captured. Then it was a simple matter to drive north to Canada.

Thus, by securing his eastern position, Jackson added immeasurably to the security of the country. True, he was forcing an invasion of the country through New Orleans, but that was the worst possible site for a military action of this kind with its bayous, streams, creeks, and soggy ground-- all treacherous to the movement of heavy invasion equipment and large armies. The pieces of his grand strategy fitted together right from the beginning--and maybe in some extraordinary way only Jackson understood it. Had he not conquered the Creeks, Mobile could not have been held; and if Pensacola had not been taken, the British would have used it as an invasion route into the United States and then across to the Mississippi. The invasion would have been infinitely simplified.......The glorious penetration of Spanish territory enraptured the west. Its profound impact on the Indians was applauded, and Jackson's status as hero escalated. The invasion of Florida also vastly improved his own talents in handling the army. The speed with which he could now maneuver his men was truly extraordinary. The victories necessarily improved morale among the troops, strengthening their confidence in themselves and their commander. They also stiffened resistance in New Orleans, where the governor had previously reported a deep lassitude on the part of the inhabitants with respect to defending their city."

From Spencer's The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 (page 480): "Jackson now centered his focus on Pensacola as the base of British operations in the area, which while far smaller than Mobile did have a superior harbor. Jackson not only took Pensacola but also put down the Creeks, actions without which Mobile could not have been held. These American victories and the British failure to capture Mobile dealt a deathblow to any hopes that the Creeks would join the British and forced British vice admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, commander of the expeditionary force bound for the Gulf Coast, to modify his plans in favor of a direct assault on New Orleans."

In fact I don't remember ever seeing a RS that dismissed the Gulf Coast actions as unimportant. VictorD7 (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You have explained your position and other editors have responded. It may be that your arguments about the role of Spain in the war are valid but weight requires us to reflect the opinions expressed by reliable sources. Unless you can show that they have reached the same conclusions as you, we cannot say that Spain participated in the war. And we cannot say that America's conquest of Mobile could be seen as evidence that the US was the winner. TFD (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Every RS quoted says Spanish troops participated, which is why they're already listed in the info box as "Belligerents" on the Wiki page for the Battle of Pensacola (1814). We're also talking about Spanish West Florida, not just "Spain". Spain was torn by a major domestic war and its colonies were mostly on their own. That doesn't mean the various provinces ceased to be actors on the world stage. VictorD7 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you are still talking about the actions of a single isolated Spaniard who was only in charge of the small town of Pensacola. You have not provided any RS that goes beyond that. Quoting historians about the importance of Mobile and Pensacola is not the same as showing RS to support your quest to include Spain in the info box. Dwalrus (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that "isolated Spaniard" was the governor of West Florida, lol, and the "lone" man had 500 Spanish regulars under him at the Battle of Pensacola. I allowed for the possibility of putting something like "Spanish West Florida" in the info box instead of "Spain", though the Battle of Pensacola (1814) page just lists "Spain" as a belligerent. VictorD7 (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Manrique was governor of West Florida in name only. Frank Owsley's book Struggle For the Gulf Borderlands is a must read on this subject. He states that British Major Edward Nicolls stopped at Cuba to talk with the captain general of Cuba, Ruiz Apodaca (Manrique's immediate superior) and states the following on pages 104 and 105:

"Under no circumstances did the captain general want British troops landed in the towns of Florida. In the ensuing conversations, Nicolls found that Spain considered only the towns of St. Augustine, St. Marks, and Pensacola to be Spanish territory, and that the British could do as they pleased in all other parts of Florida. About the same time, the governor of West Florida, at Pensacol, stated to American officers exactly the same concept of Spanish territory as Ruiz Apodaca had described to the British."

My description of Manrique as an "isolated Spaniard who was only in charge of the small town of Pensacola" is accurate. As for the defenses of Pensacola and the rejection of Jackson's demand to surrender, Owsley states:

"In reality, the rejection was more bluster than fact, since the Spanish garrison was small and extremely weak in equipment and discipline. An American who visited Pensacola in 1814 reported that the 'whole Spanish regular force including invalids here and and at the Barrancas, black and white, does not exceed 500 at most, and they are without subordination or discipline; a most spiritless corps, commanded by an old set of lazy pot-gutted officers.'"

You are going to have to find some RS to support the inclusion of Spanish soldiers in the info box. Dwalrus (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already quoted from RS Remini, writing far more recently than Owsley (who died in 1956), who flatly contradicts that and points out that the British, let alone the Spanish, didn't recognize the Louisiana Purchase and saw the Gulf Coast as Spanish territory, not that it particularly matters to the info box discussion. Likewise, the alleged quality of troops is irrelevant unless you're going to apply that standard to all forces currently listed in the info box. They were combatants. You can dismiss the Battle of Pensacola as "bluster", except that people died in it. The Spanish fired on the Americans but not on the British. Of course Manrique didn't physically control much beyond Pensacola by 1814, but I was laughing at the carefully worded, dismissive characterization of him as a "lone Spaniard", as if he's some random guy who wondered into the countryside and made trouble. He was the duly recognized governor of the province, leading a force larger than many that fought in the war. You have yet to explain the relevance of alleged views held by his "superior" in Cuba, given both the fact that leaders on various sides (like Jackson) often overstepped the bounds of their orders in a war covering vast distances during a time of glacial communication, and that "Spanish West Florida" has already been offered as an info box alternative to "Spain". The Battle of Pensacola, fought at a "small town" (as many important battles were) or not, was important for the various reasons mentioned by the RSs I quoted. Unlike multiple other posters here who have gotten tripped up over facts, everything I've said so far on this page has been accurate. VictorD7 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As other editors and I have told you, you need a source that says Spain was a belligerent in the war, otherwise it is just your opinion. In many articles, most recently what really happened on 911, where the president was born, whether Rosswell was covered up, various editors present arguments for alternative views of history. But we cannot accept them unless mainstream sources do. Please provide these sources. TFD (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Every source acknowledges that Spanish troops were belligerents in the war. I don't necessarily care whether "Spain" was or not (was "Spain" even a belligerent in the Peninsular War? There was no clear king, though Wikipedia already lists "Spain" as a belligerent in the Battle of Pensacola, which both that page and this one attaches to the "War of 1812".), and have repeatedly cited "Spanish West Florida" as a potential alternative for inclusion in the info box. Your attempt to associate my positions with conspiracy theories can most charitably be described as juvenile. Since you were one of the posters who earlier didn't know the difference between Fort Bowyer and the town of Mobile, frankly I'm not sure why you're still participating in this conversation. VictorD7 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Victor, The book Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands was written by the Frank Lawrence Owsley, Jr and not by his father. That book is considered one of the best on the topic and is well documented. I believe it is better than Remini's work but that is just my opinion. Remini and Owsley do not contradict each other as far as the fact that both Spain and Britain saw the Louisiana Purchase as illegal. They agree. The fact is, no matter how much you don't like it, Apodaca and Manrique stated in 1814 that only the three enclaves were considered Spanish territory. Manrique's letter to Jackson on this was written on July 26, 1814 and is contained in John S. Bassett's Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, volume 2, page 20-21. The reason for this position is that the Spanish realized just how weak they were and they would not be able to stop military action by the US or British if they choose to do so.

The small Spanish force at Pensacola shot at the Americans and not at the British because it was the US and not Britain who was grabbing land that the Spanish had previously considered to be Spanish territory. An example of this was that two months before the War of 1812 the US Congress declared west Florida to the Perdido River to be US territory and made it part of the Mississippi Territory. That included Mobile and they waited for a year before forcing a small Spanish force at the dilapidated Fort Charlotte at Mobile to leave. The Spanish had legitimate reasons to distrust the US.

I have no idea why you said: "You can dismiss the Battle of Pensacola as 'bluster.' I did not say that but I did point out that when Jackson sent an ultimatum to Manrique to surrender Owsley described Manrique's response as "more bluster than fact." Apparently you misread that for some reason.

I also don't know why you put "lone Spaniard" in quotes. I did not use the word lone you did. I said "isolated Spaniard" for a specific reason. Pensacola was physical isolated from the Spanish authorities in Cuba and Manrique acted on his own without authorization from his superiors.

As for the "relevance of alleged views" of Apodaca in Cuba and Manrique at Pensacola it means that Manrique was not "a provincial governor with authority over a large chunk of the Gulf Coast" as you previously stated. He only had authority over Pensacola since both he and Apodaca admitted they were only claiming the three towns already mentioned as Spanish territory. Dwalrus (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to me supposedly not liking it, I pointed out that it didn't matter what was said in Cuba, so I'm not sure why you misread that, Dwalrus. Pensacola was Spanish territory and Spanish troops were combatants. To clarify, I don't mean that Remini disputes what you claimed was said was actually said, but rather the notion that those words represented either the general Spanish or British view, and I only added that as an aside because the whole line is a red herring. What's more, it sounds like, with a wink and a nod, he was merely giving the British a free hand to operate in Spanish territory as long as they stayed away from the three major population centers (which they didn't do). Certainly the Spanish felt they had substantial territory when they sold the Floridas (not just three towns) to the US a few years later. Moving on, the US had plenty of reasons to distrust both the British (who violated past treaty agreements and had been arming the Indians responsible for the massacres of civilians and evacuating troops at Fort Dearborn and the wounded American POWs at the River Raisin in 1812-1813, the latter with British troops present) and the Spanish (who had made a mockery of their "neutrality" in various ways, and had been arming the Indians responsible for the Fort Mims massacre of American civilians, women, and children), but litigating that would be another pointless distraction. You're only reinforcing what I said about the Spanish being hostile to the Americans in a way they weren't to the British. The bottom line is that they fought the Americans but not the British. Both were interested in helping Indians kill Americans, and the British had assured the Spanish that lost Gulf Coast territory would be taken from the Americans and returned to them.

I'm glad you don't dismiss the Battle of Pensacola as "bluster", but it's not clear from your limited quote what precisely you were dismissing as "bluster", or why it would be relevant to this discussion. Manrique refused Jackson's offer and the battle (necessarily) ensued. Those are the facts.

Ah yes, your exact description of the governor of West Florida was "a single, isolated Spaniard" (your latest post omitted the "single" part), while Rjensen called him a "lone, local officer". My previous reference was to "the characterization" of Manrique as a rogue individual. I didn't attach a name to the words, so you can consider the markings scare quotes around an accurate paraphrase of multiple posters rather than an exact quote. I appreciate your desire to clear that up and have no wish to misquote anyone, but the meaning wasn't changed.

The Spanish still claimed a huge chunk of the Gulf Coast as part of West Florida, so I was referring to theoretical authority important to describing the man's position, but I've agreed from the beginning that his physical control had been greatly reduced by 1814, so I'm not sure what your point is. Even if he was a glorified mayor it's still misleading to dismiss him as a "single, isolated Spaniard." The alleged lone wolf commanded a 500 man garrison (a significant sized force in that war), controlled a third of remaining Spanish territory in southeast North America (per your own quote), and was an important government official. He even maintained contact with Cuba and received supplies and arms from there, some of which he gave to Indians killing Americans. Even if Manrique was acting on his own he held a position of serious responsibility, and I have yet to see a rational argument against adding "Spanish West Florida" and its 500 man garrison to the info box.

All that said, Sean Michael O’Brien, in Bitterness and Tears (page 61), writes “The captain general of Cuba, Ruiz Apodaca, had instructed Gonzalez Manrique to provide the Muscogees (Creeks) with whatever arms and supplies he could spare; and Spain’s policy of arming the Native Americans would be approved by royal decision in December 1813.” Apodaca's approval isn't necessary to recognize that Spanish troops fought and a Spanish governor participated in the War of 1812, but the source's claim is worth mentioning given the course of this discussion.

I haven't read Owsley Jr's book, but some of the reviews make it sound interesting so I'll try to check it out when I finally get a chance. Here's a description from its publisher, the University of Alabama Press: "Using American, British, and Spanish documents, many previously unknown, Frank Owsley's study establishes the Creek War and the struggle to control the Gulf borderlands as integral parts of the War of 1812. The war between the United States and a large part of the Creek nation is usually studied as local or regional history. These documentary sources, however, show the larger picture. They show Spain to have been a major influence in the Creek War and indicate the extent to which the British were aiding the Indians and using them to redirect American troops. On the other hand, Andrew Jackson, in charge of the American forces on the Gulf Coast, emerged from the conflict as a first-rate military commander. His victories on the Gulf gave the West a leader and aided in shifting political power from the eastern seaboard to the South and West.

Owsley concludes that the victories in the Gulf region were of sufficient magnitude to justify the claim that the War of 1812 was not a draw but a decisive American victory and that had there been a general of Jackson's caliber on the northern frontier, the United States might have had a clear-cut victory there.

As a result of the war, the United States held its claim on Louisiana, annexed the Mobile district, forced Spain out of Florida, and broke the power of the southern Indians, thus opening vast lands for settlement from the new nation on the eastern seaboard." http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Struggle-for-the-Gulf-Borderlands,1117.aspx (emphases mine)

At the very least can we agree, as all the sources seem to and Wikipedia already does, that the Battle of Pensacola was part of the War of 1812? VictorD7 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The "victories in question were probably over Britain and the Creek,not the Spanish (and the Creek War is puffed up by American historians,anyway). And once again,Mobile was annexed officially as a result of the Adams-Onis Treaty , significantly later and not as a result of the war of 1812. And Britain had been arming Natives for years - that didn't in itself make them at war with the United States. Rwenonah (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that the Battle of Pensacola was part of the War of 1812? And no, the US had annexed Mobile long before the Adams-Onis treaty. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Battle of Pensacola was most definitely part of the War of 1812.It does not,however,justify including Spain as a belligerent,as the Spanish troops made no meningful contribution to the battle. The majority surrendered and the Spanish were left in control of the town. And the US had illegally occupied Mobile long before the Adams-Onis Treaty , where it was formally ceded. Rwenonah (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Spanish were the primary combatants on one side of the battle, as the source I quoted earlier states. They inflicted and sustained casualties, and were captured because they lost, which often happens at the end of battles. The battle ended when the Spanish commander surrendered, so he and his men were clearly major participants. Control was returned to them due to a combination of American magnanimity and strategic calculations. No one's arguing that the Spanish were as great or persistent a threat as the British, or denying that relations with them were more complex, but that's often true with certain players in wars, and Spanish troops did participate in the war. As for Mobile, the Spanish occupation was illegal in the eyes of the US. From Washington's perspective the US was taking its rightful land per the (admittedly vaguely defined) Louisiana Purchase. Either way it doesn't change the fact that the territory permanently changed physical hands during the war, or that the British failed to retake it and return it to their Spanish allies as promised. I appreciate you answering the Pensacola question though, and I'm glad we've established at least some common ground. VictorD7 (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Victor, I don't have the time or the desire to continue debating this with you but you do need a consensus of editors to make the type of additions that you seem to want to make. At this time it appears you don't have any support. BTW, it's not a good idea to use a publisher's comments on one of their books. Dwalrus (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Given how immensely busy you must be I appreciate that you took the time to repeat that important point about "consensus", even though you weren't able to answer my question about the Battle of Pensacola. As for the publisher, why not? Did it lie about its own book? VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is that Spanish fought in a battle during the war, therefore Spain was a belligerent in the war. That is original research. Unless a reliable source has drawn that connection, we have no choice but to ignore your argument. If you do not like this policy, then change it. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time. TFD (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make an argument, I asked a question to see what common premises, if any, we could establish and move from there, and I wasn't talking to you. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to come here and repeatedly fail to contribute in any meaningful way. I doubt there's any source that says "Britain", "Creek allies", or any of the other elements currently listed in the info box "should be included in the Wikipedia info box and officially classified as belligerents", so obviously there's already a level of interpretation involved. Many sources, however, do firmly establish Spanish troops as the majority of combatants on one side in the Battle of Pensacola, a battle in the War of 1812. Again, "Spain" aside, I certainly have yet to see anyone even attempt to make a rational argument against including "Spanish West Florida" in the info box. VictorD7 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. If you have nothing to offer, then I will close the discussion. TFD (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't get my hopes up that you'd try to answer the question or make a rational argument against the improvements I offered. If nothing else, at least this discussion has educated multiple regular editors here on basics like the difference between Fort Bowyer and Mobile, the fact that the US permanently possessed Mobile after seizing it from the Spanish, the fact that Spanish troops fought at the Battle of Pensacola and a large number of them fled with their British allies afterward, and other items. We even discovered multiple authors who attach America's territorial gain to the War of 1812, and at least one (so far) who apparently mentions it while arguing that claims of US victory in the war are justified. A more informed Wikipedia is better than a less informed one. VictorD7 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Look,I appreciate the sheer effort you've put into this argument. I know what its like to argue against seemingly vast numbers of editors seemingly pointlessly opposed against a logical edit.There are usually good reasons for their opposition. But the fact is,consensus demands that you give in. Try finding sources that state your point more explicitly,and you might have more success. Rwenonah (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I made multiple suggestions, but said long ago that I have no intention of making an edit at this point that lacks broad support. In fact I titled this section as a question, rather than a straightforward edit proposal that I intended to campaign for vigorously. This initial discussion went about like I figured it would and has served its purpose, particularly in educating me on the regulars here and educating some of them on The War of of 1812. I will, however, continue to correctively reply to misunderstandings and false statements when made. VictorD7 (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Exscuse me if I haven't memorized every one of your comments so far on the page.I meant to,but I might have missed one. And an argument this long does tend to convey the view of "campaigning for [it] vigorously". While you may consider every other editor less knowledgeable than you,a veneer of politeness is sometimes a neccessary factor when editing.Multiple editors disagreed with you and expressed why. You should accept this and move on. And you really should read over some of the rules. consensus would be a good place to start. Weight could come next. Rwenonah (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You even misunderstood my last post. I never denied that other editors (at least the three or four participating in this discussion) disagreed with me, so it's not clear what you want me to "accept". I also never said anything about "every other editor('s)" overall knowledge, but just pointed out that some editors (including you, now that you want to dwell on the fact) made some objectively false statements and were corrected by sources, meaning you're now a little more educated than you were before. You're welcome. As for politeness, I've been respectful until disrespected and restrained even then, not that personal feelings should matter to editors. And no, this section blew up mainly due to tangential discussions, which you were an eager participant in. If I had pushed vigorously for specific changes you'd know it. You failed to cite any rules I broke, and in general should probably think your comments through better before replying. VictorD7 (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I did misunderstand your last post.Ah,well,it happens. However,I at no point made "an objectively false statement that was corrected by sources". That is entirely the preserve of other editors,(including yo,now that you wish to dwell on it). To be fair,you never broke any rules,you just demonstrated lack of knowledge about some of them.Now I think this discussion should be ended. Good luck with your future editing. Rwenonah (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You incorrectly claimed, among other things, that Spanish troops didn't flee with the British and you didn't even know whether Spanish troops fought at the Battle of Pensacola. I quoted sources to educate you on both points. I never demonstrated any lack of knowledge regarding rules, so that's another false claim by you. In the future I'd suggest that you study a topic before presuming to preach on it, and at least learn the basics of how to conduct a nested online discussion so others don't have to keep indenting your replies for you. Have a nice day. VictorD7 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that the US acquired fairly important Gulf Coast territory from Britain's Spanish allies be mentioned in the section on why the the US "won"?

I see this differently, along the lines that the War of 1812 was between the USA and Britain's Crown Forces. Concurrently, there was the "Patriot War" conflict between the USA and Spain.

It would be like saying that when the Soviet Union fought the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany and Japan, that it was allied with Brazil, whose troops fought in Italy from September 1944-May 1945. They may have had a shared enemy in Nazi Germany, but their troops did not fight side by side. Whilst Soviet troops fought the Japanese, the Brazilians were neutral towards the Japanese.

The 200? British marines and the 200? Spanish infantry at Fort Barrancas do not appear to have fired a shot in anger. It appears that they sabotaged the fortifications before Jackson's men could complete the 14 mile march from Pensacola

The Spanish colonial authorities do seem to have been at pains to appear neutral, and to appease both the British and the US owing to their weak forces, in relation to those other two nations. Keith H99 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The War of 1812 included more than two belligerents, as WW2 included more than Germany, Japan, and the USSR (sometimes wars even include more than two sides). The sources show various Indian groups and the Spanish were participants (and combatants) in a variety of ways already laid out here. Many Spanish fled with the British after their defeat at Pensacola, and the British had promised the Spanish they'd restore their lost territory to them, a promise American victories prevented them from keeping. VictorD7 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)