Talk:War of 1812/Archive 9

message: The overview section starts off a little weakly with "The war started badly for the Americans as their attempts to invade Canada were repeatedly repulsed..." As someone with little knowledge of the war, I was hoping for more background, like *why* the Americans were invading, what built up to those events, and so on. Can anybody shed some light on this and add it to the article? Thanks. Maruchan 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could consult the causes of the war section below it or the Origins of the War of 1812 article linked in the same section.  The causes were pretty convoluted to try to do much justice in the overview.  You have things like impressment building up intense outrage, then the impressment being ended but having the war break out before word of the change in policy could be recieved.  And that just addresses impressment.  I don't know if the causes could be put in the overview without either taking over or constantly being attacked as too simplistic.Zebulin 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more in favour of the initial position that causes not be enumerated in the overview, but since they appear to be, I felt I had to add "desire for territorial expansion of the Republic" to those listed. I believe all are correct. The decision-makers here had a sort of cocktail of interests, and ultimately decided to invade, though certainly there was no unity among the American leadership (particularly in New England!) on the actual cause of war. While I recognize that of course not all of the American leadership sought territorial expansion, one interest group did and they lobbied fairly hard. Dmhaglund 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview assistance 

message: :See previous Talk:War of 1812/Archive_1#Name of the war and Talk:War of 1812/Archive 4#Title
If this page was moved to American War of 1812 the the ugly first sentence could be cleaned up from
:The War of 1812 (known as the American War of 1812 in Britain to distinguish it from the war with Napoleon I of France that occurred in the same year)...' 
to
:The American War of 1812 was fought between the United States of America and the United Kingdom and its colonies.
It would also allow for the removal of "This article is about the U.S. – U.K. war. ....". Anyone object to moving the page to "American War of 1812" and if so why? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would, on the simple basis that the war is commonly known as the War of 1812. That is its common name in English and hence why it is the name of the article (To be honest, I've never heard it referred to as the American War of 1812, it might be an obsolete term no longer taught in British schools, certainly the other was called 'Napoleon's Invasion Of Russia' and is treated as part of the Napoleonic Wars) Narson 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed -- that awkward phrase was added without comment or supporting evidence by an anon IP  on March 25.  Much of the discussion in the archives about this point seems to question whether anyone currently uses the name "American War of 1812" for the war. My choice would be to leave the article at the current title, which unless additional evidence is provided is clearly the predominant and primary use. And also remove the awkward and uncited phrase claiming that it is known as the "American War of 1812" -- or perhaps if a source can be found, move the description into a footnote. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American War of 1812 

message: These two sentences need cleanup:
1. 'The main cause of this however was down to the fact that the US Frigates heralded more guns and the picked crews recruited from the large group of unemployed US sailors than a regular British Fifth Rate Frigates with their crews rounded out by impressment and landsman making the match up uneven.[12]'
Problems:
-The Frigates didn't 'herald' more guns. They had more firepower. Ships don't make proclamations.
-'match up' should be 'match-up'
-'more' does not flow to 'than' very well
2. When two ships of almost equal strength did meet (USS Chesapeake and HMS Shannon) resulted in the HMS Shannon's victory (note that the captain of the Shannon practiced a relentless gun drill). 
Problem:
-missing 'it' between 'did meet' and 'resulted' if the sentence stays as-is
:Feel free to make the changes using the edit function. The joy of wikipedia is that if you see these problems, you can fix it yourself, especially if its so uncontroversial a change :) Narson 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar needing cleanup 

message: This article has no references.  A list of books about the War of 1812 is irrelevant.  What is needed is the list of books which were used to write this article. BradMajors 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No References 

message: I've applied to get semi protect status for awhile given the level of vandals we seem to attract. Tirronan 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection 

message: Amusing to see the result left simply as a reference to the Treaty of Ghent/status quo ante bellum. To my knowledge this is the only article of its kind that has a problem naming the victor in a war which was so clearly one sided. Overly sensitive yanks? 132.185.240.121 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see one of the other sections about this. While I happen to agree that it was British victory in the war itself, we did lose it all at the table.  I am, however, secure enough in the ability of Britain's honour to stand up to people having to read about the war to come to that conclusion ;) Narson (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one has been beaten to death in the archives. I'm an American and I think we lost, though what we lost is like grabbing air, in that respect this is one of the weirder wars. However any attempt to change it will have the trolls ranting again so it stays as is. Tirronan (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euphemism 

message: I thought I'd bring this here before I deleted the word but, it states the Americans decisively beat the British at New Orleans, but, history books I read indicate British reinforcements were coming up and they could have pressed the siege again but instead chose to withdraw after the defeat and went on to take a supposedly untakeable fort further east....it seems like a victory but not one that was wholly decisive. What is the general view? Is the word justified in remaining? Narson 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Orleans 

message: The consensus is that this war was a British victory. Just read the discussion pages if you are in any doubt. Alternatively, if you think the result should read 'Status quo ante bellum' please explain why the Battle of New Orleans  should not also be described  in the same way.
The argument seems to be that there were no American territorial claims on the Canadian colonies (which is not true) so therefore their failed invasion of Canada cannot be described as a defeat. I have news for you, Britain had no territorial claim on New Orleans.
Please do not vandalise this article further by violating Wikipedia policy on Consensus.
Thank you.
'Bias Remover'    9th December 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you bothered to actually read and understand the past discussions, you would see that there is absolutely no such consensus to describe the outcome as a British victory. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have actually read "ALL the previous discussions", perhaps you can share with us how you managed to determine that there is any such consensus? (that is, by reference to reliable sources without resorting to original research to produce your own assessment of the events) older ≠ wiser 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You asserted a "fact" (that there was some consensus on this page) which to any other reasonable person is plainly false. I don't see that you have any other point. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would answer your original question by stating that the Battle of New Orleans was a moot battle, as it occurred AFTER the Treaty of Ghent. It matter not one whit whether or not the invasion of Canada failed- in the end, it is the treaty that sums up exactly what was gained and what was lost, and therefore the war was a draw. That fact is undeniable, despite what occurred during the War of 1812. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 86.9.138.200 makes only one change to this article ... repeatedly. --Noren (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: definitely a POV warrior judging by contributions but that isn't vandalism (strictly speaking).  There is obviously some trolling by that IP occurring on this and other discussion pages but the article edits themselves can pass as good faith edits as far as I can see.Zebulin (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, still responding to this guy is counterproductive at best. Reverting the POV edits is easy enough but I would prefer spending my time making the article better. Tirronan (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't you invest some energy in finding a source that makes the case that the British empire won the war of 1812 rather than edit warring here and on the battle of New Orleans page?Zebulin (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: While I have my own opinion of who won/lost the war of 1812 perhaps this might go some way to end the troll bits on the victory/defeat issue.  Your thoughts please. 
Who won the War of 1812?
This subject has suffered arguments from every side since the war ended.  One of the issues with this war is that both sides saw this as a limited war with limited aims.  The United Kingdom never envisioned the recapture of the United States of America.  The United States never thought it could actually defeat the United Kingdom.  The evaluation of what each side hoped to accomplish and what it actually did accomplish is the only measure of what is victory.  As the Treaty of Ghent only reverted, any gains that either side made during the war and addressed not a single issue substantially there is nothing to be learned by referring to this treaty, therefore only the actions of the parties afterwards can lead to any understanding of what was won or lost by the War of 1812. 
United States of America’s war goals
The United States of America’s main goals were to force the United Kingdom to:
* Respect its territorial waters / successful
* Cease impressments of its citizens at sea / successful
* To have its foreign trade unrestricted / successful
* To be respected as a national power in its own right / successful
* Capture of Canada to force the UK to quick submission / failed
United Kingdom’s war goals
The United Kingdom main goals were to force the United States of America to:
* To give up the war against the United Kingdom / successful
* To repress the expanding commercial competition of the United States / successful
* To retain the Canadian Colonies / successful
* To repress the United States westward expansion / failed
The goals of both nations were fairly well met even if they were settled by later negotiation or by silent agreement.  
* The US never again threatened Canada with invasion.
* The US never again declared war against the UK.
* The US merchant marine now stripped of its “most neutral of neutrals” status never regained the trade it had enjoyed before the War of 1812.
* The US continued to expand at a rapid rate across the western territories and the hoped for Indian buffer state never allowed to exist.
* The UK made sure that the Royal Navy never again impressed men from American ships.
* The UK never again failed to treat the US as a national power in its own right.
* All UK forts in US territory were abandoned.
Regardless of implicit or silent agreement, both sides of the war had achieved their war goals in the main. 
Tirronan (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True but most of this can already be surmised by the recent additions to the article.  Spelling it out for the reader smacks of OR IMHO.  One thing that might help would be if I am able to find a source that neatly summarises the war aims of each side.  I don't think our current sources really do this except piecemeal and in such a way that it's not clear how many or how important other war aims might be.Zebulin (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that is the reason I brought it up, its edging towards OR territory if not crossing it. Tirronan (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? My understanding was that impressment of American sailors acctually stopped at the start or before the start of the war? Narson (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The histories will stop referring to impressment at the start of the war because the capture of hostile merchantmen is seen as legitimate during the course of the war. All four of the books I have at hand are in agreement that the Royal Navy wouldn't stop or impress US flagged vessels during the 100 days.  The more interesting to me is that the US still lost is booming trade because at the end of the war the US was seen as just another touchy national power with a navy it was more than willing to use.  The other side of that being since a single voyage could no longer pay for the cost of the ship, capital moved to manufactering, already started with the loss of trade with the UK during the war, and jump started the US economy. Tirronan (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this worth adding?