Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 29 July 2005

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

• This talk page was refactored on 20 March 2005. (You can read earlier versions by clicking on "history" above.)

Name of the war

User PML noted that the article did not mention that "the standard British name for the war" was the "British-American War", nor did it mention Napoleon's Continental Policy, which had an effect on the War of 1812. However, Tannin, who had a British education, noted that the term "British-American War" was less familiar than the "War of 1812". (The article now mentions both names as well as having a link to Napoleon's Continental Policy).

War of 1812 is pretty much the standard name in Britain. I've never heard British-American war outside of this article. I guess the American/Canadian name took over as THE name as to Americans this war is important whilst to Britain its just one minor incident among many and is not even mentioned in schools --Josquius 17:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Potomac phase of Chesapeake campaign

In the Chesapeake campaign, the article begins with the burning of Federal buildings in Washington, but I suspect that this phase was preceded by the burning of buildings along the Potomac coast, and some concurrent (alleged ?) looting.

Battle of New Orleans

A lot of literature fails to mention that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the peace was already agreed to in Britain. The news of the peace simply had not reached North America yet. The point is that this battle was irrelevant to the outcome of the war. This article, and many other ones, imply that the battle had a major impact on the outcome, when in fact there was none. --David

Actually, since the treaty of Ghent had not been ratified by either Parliament or Congress, a British victory at New Orleans could have led to a repudiation of the treaty by either side. GABaker

It could have, most certainly. But both sides were very weary of the conflict for many reasons; there just wasn't the will to fight any more and war debts were heavy for both nations. New Orleans and the southern campaign were for Britain a sideshow within a sideshow; the real war, in Europe against Napolean, was already over.

Perhaps stating it even simpler: If the US didn't renounce the Treaty of Ghent after such an impressive victory -- why would the Brits have done so, if positions were reversed? The British policy in the war was primarily about containment and curtailment of US aggression, not about conquest.

As David said, the Battle of New Orleans had no real impact on the ending of the war. Pretending it did seems (to me) to be more about shoring up one side of the "We won!" -- "No, we won!!" postwar conflict, than about the actual War of 1812. Madmagic

And yet, the Battle is seen as the final land battle of the War. The final sea battle was the capture of the USS Essex in 1815 off the coast of Chile. The significance of the battle led to the rise of Andrew Jackson and the opening of the American Southwest as the main axis of American expansion. GABaker

Well I think you hit on the key point here. Whether or not it was consequential to the British, it certainly had a huge impact on the American psyche. Recall that after the Revolutionary War, despite the Treaty of Paris, the British still kept garrisons in the Northwest, basically thumbing their nose at the notion that the U.S. territory actually extended to the region and effectively saying: "you want us out, make us leave!" Battle of New Orleans, as you point, effectively removed any taint of this coming out the war and established in the American mind, as least as I view it (and I'm not a historian), as having mastery over the region, not just formal title to it. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At the risk of being redundant (again ;) I'm going to restate David's original comments, since we seem to be wandering from them:

The point is that this battle was irrelevant to the outcome of the war. This article, and many other ones, imply that the battle had a major impact on the outcome, when in fact there was none.

The impact of the Battle of New Orleans on US expansion into Spanish territory in Florida or Texas or the southwest; or the affect on later US attitudes towards Britain; or on Andrew Jackson's following political career in the US -- all of those issues aren't really about the War of 1812.

The War of 1812 was already over when Jackson's US forces defeated the British army at New Orleans. That battle didn't restart the war; it was an unfortunate accident and (from the point of view of making any difference in the War of 1812) that battle was inconsequential.

I'm personally amenable to including discussion of the Battle of New Orleans under a "postwar developments" heading or a "consequences of the War" section, or "postwar Anglo-US relations" heading. But c'mon now, people... the battle happened when the peace treaty had already been signed. New Orleans didn't alter a single comma of the agreements already set down between Britain and the US in the peace treaty.

And therefore, as David wrote above -- the Battle of New Orleans had no impact on the outcome of the war. QED, eh? :) Madmagic 02:12, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Can anyone point out something in this article that makes the Battle of New Orleans out to be of great significance. It is mentioned in just a few terse lines. I'm not sure why this is an issue here. I just don't see any claims being made in the article that the Battle had a great impact. Bkonrad | Talk 02:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Battle of New Orleans is the subject of a full paragraph (under "The Southwestern Campaign") plus a one-line paragraph, and half of a following para in the next section. While seven sentences is indeed only a few terse lines, when those lines occur in an article which barely mentions the battles of Queenston Heights or Lundy's Lane, or Tecumseh's impact or his brother The Prophet, or General Brock's battlefield death -- there is something of an un-natural stress on a battle which did affect subsequent US politics and wars with other nations, but had no real affect on the subject of the article: The War of 1812.

Before anyone rushes in to point out "well, go ahead and add to the above" I really would like to see some understanding and agreement expressed. New Orleans was an important battle in the political history and development of the United States. Understood. Agreed. But... it wasn't important in the War of 1812.

I restate the point (again...) because it seems there is a subtle but very persistant unwillingness for others to simply agree with this simple point. Much is made of New Orleans, in the article and in this discussion.

Yet that battle wasn't anywhere near as important to the progress and outcome of the War of 1812 as the battles mentioned immediately above, or Tecumseh, or Brock's large successes and tragic battlefield death -- or the Great Lakes arms race of shipbuilding on both sides, or the Great Lakes naval battles, or the many US army invasions of Canadian territory.

Personally, I'd like to abandon this discussion and have all of us make the entire article better -- by increasing the amount of content on War of 1812 battles which did make a real difference. :)

Tippecanoe, Chrysler?s Farm, Sackett's Harbour, Chippawa, or Plattsburg Bay, anyone? Fort York or Fort George or Fort Niagara? Surely we've all given the New Orleans battle more attention than it deserves, by now. Madmagic 13:58, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this article would be best served by expanding on the other aspects of the war that were more consequential in terms of the war. Until I began working with WP, I had not known very much about any of the main campaigns -- a bit about some battles on Lake Erie (I grew up in the Cleveland area). But even I had often heard that the BONO was fought after the treaty had been signed. I just don't see that such a big deal is made about it in terms of its impact on the war. Almost all I can recall of it is 1) it happened after the treaty had been signed and 2) it was a big step in Jackson's political career. Perhpaps it is because those extra-martial aspects draw attention to the battle such that it overshadows the main campaigns. I agree that the battle is probably better known that many other battles in the war, but not that it is made out to have had some huge impact on the course of the war -- just that it is more well known. Bkonrad | Talk 17:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I really don't see what the problem is either. There is basically one sentence about the battle. Any less and it wouldn't be mentioned at all. -- Decumanus | Talk 17:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The battle of New Orleans completely changed the United States perspective on the War of 1812. I think that's relevant to the war itself. I'm looking for primary sources to back me up before I go around editing it though. Basically, it made it so that Americans didn't necessarily have to see the war as a total loss. It's certainly the battle contemporary Americans were proudest of. In otherwords, mention should probably be made of how national unity was practically non-existant during the war (re: hartford convention) up until the battle. --Shanoyu 09:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One thing to note is that the war had not formally ended when the Battle of New Orleans took place. The treaty did not reach the United States until February 16, 1815, and had been signed by President Madison on Feburary 17, 1815.

Article II of the Treaty states

Immediately after the ratifications of this treaty by both parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the armies, squadrons, officers subjects and citizens of the two Powers to cease from all hostilities. And to prevent all causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes which may be taken at sea after the said ratifications of this treaty, it is reciprocally agreed

that all vessels and effects which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the said ratifications, upon all parts of the coast of North America, from the latitude of twenty-three degrees north to the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far eastward in the Atlantic Ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on each side: that the time shall be thirty days in all other parts of the Atlantic Ocean north of the equinoctial line or equator, and the same time for the British and Irish Channels, for the Gulf of Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies; forty days for the North Seas, for the Baltic, and for all parts of the Mediterranean; sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean south of the equator, as far as the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope; ninety days for every other part of the world south of the equator; and one hundred and twenty days for all other parts of the world, without exception.

Article XI stated:

This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this day, or sooner if practicable.

In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and have thereunto affixed our seals.

Done, in triplicate, at Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen.

Therefore, according to the terms of the Treaty, hostilites did not cease until the treaty was ratified and commanders such Pakenham and Jackson received orders from London and Washington respectively.

This is an important point. Hostilities could, and did continue, until news of the end of the war reached the combatants. The Battle of New Orleans therefore is part of the War. Had there been a transatlantic and transcontinental telegraph, then there would have been no Battle of New Orleans; I seem to recall that this was one of the selling points for the transatlantic cable.

As for the other battles; I have been researching them (desultorily, I admit) and intend to flesh out the details of these, in particular the Niagara Campaign.

GABaker

Since the War of 1812 is generally accepted as 'a draw', the Battle of New Orleans' significance -like the outcome of the war- depends on which side of the border you're from. From an American viewpoint, it was significant because of the points mentioned above. In the American psyche, the battle demonstrated American resolve in expanding their frontiers westward (and their willingness to defy foreign powers who might interfere with that progress). And, Jackson did benefit from his fame there on his journey to the White House.

In Canada, the Battle of New Orleans is mentioned in passing as a footnote. The Treaty of Ghent is generally the point which Canadians consider as the end of the war. The campaigns in Niagara held greater significance, since they are portrayed as defining the birth of a distinctly Canadian nationalism -- where they made a conscious break with their continental cousins and, in fact, took up arms against them. American forces had assumed -incorrectly- that the recent settlers in Upper Canada (many were from the US) would welcome them as liberators.

From a technical viewpoint, hostilities would not end until the treaty itself was ratified by Britain and the U.S. But the treaty was signed -- leaving the Battle of New Orleans as a final exclamation point to the conflict. I would have to agree that the battle had a greater impact on America's post-war evolution, than it did on the actual war. One could argue that the Monroe Doctrine was the legacy of lessons first learned in the War of 1812.

SCrews

Jefferson Quote

I've added the following line in the first paragraph under the heading of Operations on the Great Lakes and Canadian Border:

Former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson dismissively referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching."

The quotation from Jefferson seems to sum initial US attitudes to the conflict and has become a fairly well-known phrase in Canada. I don't mean to be dismissive of U.S. views, but AFAIK it's an accurate quote. Comments welcome.

Madmagic 07:32, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

Pierre Berton tells me Jefferson's actual quote was "a mere matter of marching" but I'm not going to edit that since I've heard it both ways and who knows which one is correct? Not me! But the fact that he said it makes me think that it's just a fine thing to include. Lord Bob 21:34, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well you could say '...conquest of Canada as a "matter of marching."' to cover both possibilities? McKay 08:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actual quote is from Jefferson's letter to W. Duane on Aug 8, 1812, "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." So it's not Canada he thought to be a cakewalk, just Quebec.

--

Until 1791 and the Constitutional Act, the colony of Quebec included what are now Ontario and Quebec. The Act divided Quebec into Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec). The Jefferson quote could be interpreted any number of ways, depending on whether Jefferson was only referring to taking only Quebec/Lower Canada, or also referring to the fall of British North America ie Canada as in both 'Canadas'. The capture of Quebec/Lower Canada likely would have led to the fall of British North America, as it was the seat of colonial gov't. If Jefferson were referring to Quebec in that sense, he would be correct in assuming that once Quebec was taken, the Americans could effectively control both Upper and Lower Canada and proceed to Halifax.

Upper and Lower Canada together were known as the Canadas (which had all been Quebec until the Act), so Jefferson could have also meant that both Canadas would be an easy conquest if Quebec ie Lower Canada, seat of British colonial rule, fell. It would seem that he felt the invasion of Quebec would be easier than facing Halifax, a major port for the Royal Navy.

SCrews 05:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Native Americans

I was under the strong impression that the natives, especially Tecumseh, played an important role in this war. However they are barely mentioned, and the name Tecumseh first appears to announce his death. This surely needs correcting?

I agree, though Gawd knows I'm not well-enough aware of the native contribution, outside of what they did in a few battles, to write it myself. Still, if somebody out there knows their Native North American history, now is a good time. Lord Bob 00:42, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I have a couple of texts on Tecumseh; I'll check them as soon as I am free to do so. The Native Americans did play a major role as a British ally, and defeating them was one of the accomplishments of Jackson in the Southwestern Theater of the war. GABaker

Objectivity

This page is pretty neutral. I am impressed. In the United States it is taught that the Americans won the War of 1812 and in Canada it is taught in school that the British won the War of 1812. -stoltz

A Canadian friend of mine once told me that she was taught that the War of 1812 was fought to keep America from conquering Canada. -- Zoe

Well, that is basically what Britain and Canada were doing, right? They won in the sense that the American invasion was expelled. Whether American objectives were met is somewhat harder to assess, since the British were willing to end impressment before the war broke out. In most senses, the war was a draw. I think the article does a good job with this.

I agree. One aspect where the article does lack is in its mention of British or Canadian players in the war. There is no mention of people that are war heroes from the war in Canada today like Joseph Brant and Laura Secord, although it does mention Tecumseh, and Isaac Brock -stoltz

It seems that the author of this article was biased in some fashion towards the British, given that at almost every possible opportunity, something derisive is said about the Americans involved in this conflict.

There isn't one author. I've been working on trying to get the American POV through without offending the Canadian and British POVs. I do think you might be right; let the deeds do the talking.--GABaker

There's a big part of the problem: "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica." 1911! That explains the archaic style and expressions like "behaved detestably" and "ignorant of a soldier's business".

---

I tried cleaning up the section about the naval war, to make it a little more readable, but it is still very American-centric. It doesn't really explain the strategy of either side, or give any descriptions of the actions of the British.

The remainder of the article could do with a cleanup and creation of a proper structure, and I agree wholeheartedly with the removal of the glossary.

3mta3 11:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the naval section needs more work. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the Lake Erie operations, but one gets the impression that the Americans dominated the Great Lakes, when that was not the case. US successes on Lake Erie were chastened by their failure to dominate Lake Ontario. Both countries now share the Great Lakes, it was far from an unqualified American success.

I've cleaned up the intro to 'Operations on the Great Lakes', and tried to give it a more balanced tone -- but the rest of the section needs work.

SCrews 21:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I completed a cleanup of the Great Lakes and Niagara campaigns sections. It should now have a more balanced tone, and recognizes that Lake Ontario remained under British control, due to British naval superiority and the continued possession of Kingston, and thus an uninterrupted link to Quebec and the St. Lawrence.

SCrews 05:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Effect of the war in the U.S. & Canada

This page suggests that responsible government was an American idea yet the article itself on responsible government and other Canadian historical sources say it was a British idea. What is the conflict? SD6-Agent 01:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you've just zeroed in on how the War of 1812 symbolized a crossroads for both American and Canadian identities. The war has been described as America's second revolution, because it confirmed its independence by resisting the bullying tactics (naval impressment, etc.) of their former European master. From their point of view, why wouldn't the citizens of the Canadas want to be 'liberated' from the British rule?

If not for the invasion of Canada, the sizable American settler population in Upper Canada may well have agreed with their southern neighbours. While the war helped define a new Canadian nationalism, it also encouraged the upper classes in York and Quebec to close ranks, thus stifling the evolution of responsible government in Canada until the rebellions of 1837-38. Canada wanted a change from the colonial government of the past, but at the same time, it didn't want an American version of it.

If there is a conflict, it's in the 'form' of responsible government that Canada wanted (in the British tradition) versus the American system of government which might have been imported had the US taken Upper Canada, and which some rebels in 1837 had advocated (unsuccessfully).

Thank you!! This site makes a lot of sence!! Thank you.

I believe the issue was not responsible government, which was the main demand in the 1837 rebellions, but a movement away from democracy and republicanism, especially by the Upper and Lower Canadian elites. The fact that responsible government, rather than democracy, became the issue before and after the 1837 rebellion is most likely a result of the anti-American sentiment generated by the war of 1812. 05:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is an American?

I'm not a native English speaker. In my mother tongue an American is someone born in America, the same way as a European is someone born in Europe.

So, when the article says that at that time 1/3 of Canadians were born in America I understood that the other third were born in Europe, Asia, Africa...

But after reading it other time I've realised what they meant is that they were born in the USA!

This problem is just mine, and American is an unambiguous term in English, or it would be better to clarify it?

In English, 'American' almost always refers to somebody born in the United States. You're not the first non-native English speaker to have this problem and I'm sure you won't be the last. Lord Bob 02:04, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Right, and even more specifically in the United States and Canada, "American" refers only to people from the United States. Some Canadians would be offended if you called them Ameicans :) Adam Bishop 09:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First declared war????

User:Sesmith added this line to the article: It was the first time that the United States had declared war on another nation. However, First Barbary War states that It was the first war declared under the United States Constitution. Both statements cannot be true, unless there is some qualification about whether the Barbary States of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli were "nations" at the time of the war. older≠wiser 13:34, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think the statement that was in First Barbary War is misleading, and have removed it. Tripoli declared war on the U.S., but the U.S. did not declare war . older≠wiser 14:38, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

The article formerly contained a link to "United Kingdom" which is the root article about the UK. Although "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is the correct title at the time of the war, it doesn't shed any light on the war and is much less complete than the root article. I think that the link should be to "United Kingdom." I propose we change it back to link to the main UK article. Comments? Sunray 03:47, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Neither the United Kingdom nor the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland contain anything specific in relation to the War of 1812. However, insofar as the latter was the actual political entity at the time, it makes sense to me that the link should go there -- especially since the link you added was a piped link ]. Also the infobox link was also a piped link, but this time ], so it did not make sense to have them linking to two different articles, neither of which was what the text of the link said it was. If you want to change them all to UK, I don't care all that much, though I do think it is preferable to link to the correct historical entity. older≠wiser 16:42, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Causes of the war

I've removed some of the bullets from the article. The article is overly long (over 32 kilobytes) and needs trimming. These points are background to the war, perhaps, but we are not writing a book. It is a stretch to call them "causes" and we would need a whole lot more explanation to tie them in properly.

• In the Treaty of Paris (1783) that formally ended the American Revolutionary War, Great Britain ceded lands of her Native American allies to the United States; the Native Americans were not consulted. Nevertheless, in the following years, Great Britain sought to keep an "Indian Buffer" between Canada and the United States.
• Northwest Indian War
• Jay Treaty
• In 1811, William Henry Harrison defeated the Shawnees in the Battle of Tippecanoe.

If anyone thinks they should be back in the article, please explain. We will have to come up with other strategies for shortening the article. Sunray 07:23, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

If I'd read through the entire article recently enough to remember they were there, I'd probably have removed them myself. The Native issues influenced the Natives joining the war, in my opinion, but it didn't have much to do with the war itself starting. Lord Bob 22:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I put a needs cleanup notice in the article due to word-by-word duplication in various sections, sections with very awkward, difficult to understand, or incorrect grammar and diction, as well as underdeveloped analysis sections. --68.225.251.152 02:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit: The "Motives of the UK" is particulary bad, seeming both POV and unencyclopedic. --68.225.251.152 02:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good that you've added the clean-up notice. I agree with your comments. "The Motives of the UK" section should perhaps be retitled, rewritten and moved to a new section titled "Effects of the War of 1812 on Postwar UK", parallel to similar sections for the U.S. and Canada. The section has been removed, perhaps for the better—there was little content that could be redeemed. Sunray

68.225.251.152: Are you going to acquire a user name? There are a number of benefits when working on an article. Sunray 18:40, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

The other thing that struck me was that several sections are also dealt with in articles elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. These include:

• Battle of Lake Erie
• Treaty of Ghent
• Battle of New Orleans

I think it would be a good idea to move anything not already covered in the main article and just do a short summary in this article.

I agree. The article American Revolutionary War has been condensed by describing important battles in only one or two sentences. Even the ultimate Battle of Yorktown gets only two sentences, I believe. Readers who want more can click on the battle to get more details. The same approach should be tried here. --Kevin Myers 23:41, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Other concerns:

1. An example of underdeveloped analysis is the role of native americans/first nations in the war.
2. Much of the article needs a good edit. For example "Operations on the Ocean" is choppy and overly chatty, and needs streamlining. Edit continuing. Sunray 19:26, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
3. Something that I think is perhaps implied (though not mentioned explicitly) up to this point in the clean-up process is the length of the article. It is currently around 36 KB and the suggested maximum size for articles is 32 KB. While that is not a hard and fast rule, it is a good rule of thumb. So perhaps we could aim to condense it somewhat in our clean-up process. Sunray 16:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

It's now down to 31 KB and reads very well, IMO. Excellent work! Sunray 06:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Status quo?

The article says the war ended in a status quo. This is sort of true however the war ending in a return to status quo was what the British wanted. America invaded Canada with the intention of conquering it, Britain managed to defend against this attack. If the war had ended there it would be a British victory- Britain had successfully defended Canada from American invasion. They did not want the war- it was forced upon them. As it is though the war continued and everything after this further added to the British victory- not only did we stop Canada being conquered but we messed up quite a bit of the United States in the process. We had defeats in the US however this does not matter. Our sole aim in the war was for the Americans to leave us alone and let us concentrate on the war in Europe. So the status quo was returned after the end of the war-yes. This means there was no winner? - No. In a war with a white peace the defender is the winner especially where they did not wish for war at all in the first place. --Josquius 20:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like your original analysis. Interesting? Yes. Relevant to Misplaced Pages? No.

That is, unless you can cite a reputable, published source that concurs with your view. When it comes to history articles, we are not historians at Misplaced Pages -- we report what professional historians have written about a subject. Anything else is original research, and will be reverted. Continuing to add contested information without citing a source is vandalism. --Kevin Myers July 2, 2005 01:48 (UTC)

A source is any book on the war. Read up on the period and they all pretty much agree that Britain just wanted the war over ASAP with no losses- they vary in saying how much Britain wanted to gain though it is reall only the very poor quality American nationalist sources that say Britain wanted to conquer the US. For a source I suppose you could also go into broader military histories and philosophies. I'm sure many of them would agree that to be an attacker and to gain nothing is to loose. -Josquius

You still have not managed to cite a single source to support your edit that stated that the War of 1812 was a "narrow British victory". Your vague talk of "any book" and "poor quality American nationalist sources" without naming specific works leads me to believe that you're not familiar with the historiography of the war. Please keep in mind that it is a Misplaced Pages guideline to cite your sources.

I have, as it happens, "read up on the period" just a bit, as a glance at my edit history might reveal to the curious. (I'm particularly happy with "Tecumseh's War", since it covers important aspects probably not covered anywhere else on the Internet, though it still needs a few additions.) My reading tells me that the traditional view of the war ending status quo ante bellum ignores the fate of American Indians. If the war was a zero sum game, the Americans won since the Indians lost so much in the southern and western theatres of the war. (The Indians lost in part because they were—once again—used and tossed aside by their British allies, who often considered native interests expendable when the shooting stopped.) I can cite numerous sources for this, which I will do when I add the forthcoming "Effects of the war on American Indians" section. --Kevin Myers 16:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Since the Treaty of Ghent restored status quo ante bellum, that's how the war's ending should be reported. From the point of view of the U.S., the northern front was a stalemate, but the Western and southern fronts (which are often overlooked in Canada) victories. GABaker--20:47 12 Jul 2005

Manpower numbers

My book says Britain had 300,000 men in its army, 150,000 men and 125 ships of the line at the beginning of the war. And it says the US regular Army only had 11,000 men, and the US Navy had 20 ships and 4,000 men. Quite different from the numbers in the table of this article. --Kenyon 18:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the root cause of the discrepancy is the fact that both militaries continued to build up forces throughout, and so the manpower figure depends on the year and who you include in the count. For instance, according to Hickey, the US Regular Army was of this size:

1812: <12,000 men

1813: 30,000

1814: 40,000

1815: 45,000

Total: 57,000 -- by which he means, I believe, the total number of individuals who served at some point in the US Regular Army, though never all at the same time.

Great Britain had a similar force buildup, as they gradually detached men from Europe to serve in North America. So, which number goes in the table? The number of men at the start? The end? The most in uniform at any time? The total manpower available, whether in Europe or not? All of the above? How much info do we want on the table? A detailed breakdown, or just naked (and perhaps in this context meaningless) strength numbers like in this table? --Kevin Myers 17:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I see, good explanation, thanks. --Kenyon 18:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

I consider the term "kidnap" to describe impressment to be somewhat POV in view of the prevailing British attitude of the time that "Born British, always British" and no American citizenship certificate could be used to avoid your duty to King and Country. I wish to put that into the article without being reverted by an anonymous editor. Does anyone else agree that the reverting was uncalled for? Dabbler 15:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not worried about it enough to revert anything, impressed sailors were hauled away without their consent and with a pretty iffy legal basis in the land of their residence (the United States). I'd call that kidnapping, myself. Lord Bob 20:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• State both sides: England considered them still citizens of UK (was this long-standing policy?), USA considered it kidnapping. And in some cases, mistakes were made (source?) --JimWae 20:56, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Dabbler suggests that Americans "impressed" into the Royal Navy were British subjects who took up American citizenship. This is misleading, and in most part, incorrect. Many of these "impressed" were American citizens born in America and taken off American ships. Indeed, such was the case with three of the four sailors carried off in the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair. The sailor carried off by HMS Guerriere that led to the Little Belt Affair was also a native American. The reversion to "kidnapping", especially concerning native Americans being forced to serve in a foreign navy, is entirely called for. The British sailors certainly had different ways of deciding what to do with these "impressed" Americans. Before engaging with the USS Constitution, Captain Tom Dacres allowed the Americans on his HMS Guerriere to retire into the hold. The captain of the Macedonian, however, ordered his Americans to stay at their stations during the engagement with the USS United States. Some died fighting their own countrymen against their will.

Dabbler also wishes note the superiority of the 44-gun American frigates to the 38-gun British frigates they faced. Certainly, it's valid to note the superiority in American armament in the single frigate-to-frigate actions that occured. However, I think he places his comment in a inappropriate location. The first paragraph in the Operations on the Ocean was intended to illustrate the gross inequities between the respective Navies at the start of the war, and not to touch upon the naval engagements (or their outcome) that occured.

Especially early in the war, captains of British 38-gun frigates actively sought single-ship patrols to engage the American 44-gun frigates in one-on-one engagements, for the honour and glory of the Royal Navy. They fully believed their ship and seamanship to be equal to or better than the 44's.

The whole point about the frigates is that frigates are designed to outsail ships of the line as is often demonstrated during the war. There was no shame or dishonour in a frigate captain avoiding combat with a ship of the line, in fact it was his duty to do so and the American frigates only chose to fight other frigates. In terms of the warfare of the day ships of the line usually only fought other ships of the line in set piece fleet actions so their only real function on the North American station was to convey troops for actions against the American land forces or to bombard shore positions. So the comparison of American frigates with ships of the line is irrelevant. The Royal Navy was far stronger than the US Navy overall once it got its act together, but the US Navy was generally better equipped for the combat operations it undertook.

As for the word "kidnapping", it is inherently POV in this case, whether our anonymous editor likes it or not, what the British captains did was generally legal under British law. Documentation was very rough and ready in those days and there were no birth certificates available for seamen to show the press gang. If a man had "used the sea" and being a sailor aboard a ship on the ocean confirmed that, then he was available to volunteer or be impressed under British law. There were many foreign citizens serving in the Navy of the time and some were Americans, it is also documented that many British born sailors either legally naturalised as Americans (which was not recognised by the British authorities if they found them at sea) or illegally obtained American documentation from sympathetic American consuls in foreign ports. Thirdly, there were a number of British officers who did not consider the United States to be a legitimate entity, despite any treaties to the contrary. They considered Americans to be rebellious Britons and therefore liable for impressment regardless of documentation. Dabbler 12:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally used the word "kidnapping" in the article. I used it instead of "press", thinking that some readers might not be clear about what "press" meant. As far as I know, my sources (listed in references) do not use the word "kidnap", so it cannot be defended along those lines. The current wording which defines "press" in its first usage ('taken against their will') does the trick for me.

About citizenship, Hickey's book says: "Some British seamen acquired certificates by lying about their place of birth, while others simply bought them from obliging Americans. For a dollar, it was said, a British subject could become an American citizen." He does not indicate how many (if any) of the 6,000 American citizens kidnapped ... er... pressed into the Navy were these "dollar citizens." --Kevin Myers 14:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dabbler states that any who "used the sea" were liable to be pressed. Officialy at that time, no foreigners could be pressed unless they had married a British woman, or had worked on a British vessel for at least two years. Of the three Americans taken off the Chesapeake, one was white, one was black, and one was Native American. Commentary of the time state none could remotely be mistaken for a British subject.

As for the fling that some British officers did not regard the United States as legitimate, that it quite irrelevant. The Government of the Great Britain at the time recognized the United States as a separate nation.

That the Royal Navy ignored their own regulations, impressing foreigners when they knew they were not British subjects, is a known fact. That they did so quite openly at a time of a terrible war with Napoleon is a known fact. That the United States, in defending their own citizens (especially their native-born citizens) from a foreign force, found this to be intolerable is justified. Dabbler's argument provides no justification for the impressment of native-born Americans into the Royal Navy. The impressment of native-born Americans led to war.

I did not justify or defend the practice or attempt to justify the illegal impressment of American citizens, I just objected to the use of the word kidnap and tried to provide some context which included the historical facts that some British seamen used forged documents and some British captains did not accept the United States legitimacy regardless of the British government's position and thirdly, the three Americans who were taken off the Chesapeake had served in the Royal Navy and were considered deserters. A foreigner who serves in the US Navy today and then deserts would be just as liable to being "kidnapped" and tried fro desertion if found by the US Navy. But I don't hold grudges over a couple of centuries and along forgotten war, so I don't see why you are getting so excited over it, but as a Canadian, I am glad that we won it! (That was what we foreigners call a joke by the way) Dabbler 23:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am also a Canadian, and proud of it without apologies. I don't feel excited; however, I did want to "impress" upon you the anger the American public felt over the issue at the time. Peace.

548,600 vs. 76,000

An unknown anonymous contributor (222.228.14.220) adjusted the manpower numbers of the Americans from 548,600 to...76,000. Now, this is the first time I've ever heard the argument that the Americans were actually outnumbered in the North American theatre, so I was going to revert. But I accept that I'm Canadian and generally pro-Canadian, so I have my biases. So I wanted to open it up. What does everybody think of these numbers? At the very least, I think that (either way) the difference between 'volunteers' and 'militia' needs to be straightened up. Lord Bob July 1, 2005 01:56 (UTC)

I reverted Mr. Anonymous. The U.S. numbers given in the table are from Hickey's book, likely the best U.S. academic history on the war. I'm not crazy about putting numbers in the tables in the first place, but if we're going to put numbers in them, we can't just make them up. I understand what Anonymous getting at -- the numbers can paint a misleading picture (most US militia would never leave their own state, which perhaps should be stated in the table). The heading in the table used to be called "Strength" rather than "Manpower", which was even more misleading, since the number of warm bodies is not synonymous with "strength." And of course the British numbers are incomplete and thus too low, but that's probably not a reason to delete the US numbers. Someone needs to come up with a good academic source that gives a breakdown on British manpower.

"Volunteers" (Hickey's term BTW) are semi-professional troops in between militia and regulars. Shorter enlistments than regulars, but unlike militia could not refuse to leave their home state. The States made extensive use of this category of troops in colonial days and the Revolution, though they're often confused with regulars and militia. --Kevin Myers July 1, 2005 02:54 (UTC)

We had that many and still got our asses handed to us by 99,500 soldiers? Wow, saying we sucked is an understatement. o_O--Kross July 2, 2005 01:52 (UTC)

That sort of distortion (458,000 defeated by 99,500) is precisely what I was attempting to avoid. I have edited the manpower table to reflect the disposition of the militia during the war- i.e. not taking part in the fighting

Not a Stalemate

The American's objective was to capture a good deal of British shoil in Canada. They were repelled into their own country, and pushed the British back to the line. The invasion failed, the defense was victorious. How is that a stalemate.

In 1814, the British devised a plan to invade the United States. This was also a failure. It was a stalemate - neither side achieved a decisive victory. That this was probably a better result for the British than for the Americans does not mean that it was a British victory. john k 04:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)