Talk:War of 1812/Archive 7

message: It is rather difficult to follow the diplomatic course of this war in the article up until the treaty of Ghent.
I am particularly interested in the sentence from the "Causes of the war" subsection which says:
"After war was declared Britain offered to withdraw the trade restrictions, but it was too late for the American 'War Hawks', who turned the conflict into what they called a 'second war for independence.'"
This sentence is unsourced but it led me to try to follow how the war had proceeded diplomatically and I found that there is practically no other information in the article about any of that.  Would it be appropriate to add a section outlining the diplomatic course of the war?  Does anybody already know of a good source that gives a thorough treatment of the diplomatic side of this war?  What peace offers were made by each side at various points of the war?  Did the British have any demands at all for peace or were they prepared to offer peace at any moment on the basis of restoration of status quo antebellum?  Did the Americans ever formally demand territorial concessions from the British?  This information really seems to be lacking and would do a lot to shed light on what kept the war going and what allowed it to end.Zebulin 20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressment was one of the officially stated reasons for the war. All the more reason to suspect ulterior motives (westward expansionism and driving the British from North America spring to mind). Would also explain why the "Doves" were mostly in New England, even though their shipping was greatly affected by impressment and trade restrictions. Hawks in western Virginia and Kentucky - lotsa shipping from there, eh oy huh ;)? Bear in mind, even if territorial expansion was an (not "the") objective (or a big bonus), any nation in its right mind wouldn't say so in the declaration of war! Even Hitler claimed that Poland attacked first. (...and no, I'm not comparing any American politician to Hitler.) Given that the UK settled for status quo ante bellum at the end of the war, even though it held territory, I think it's likely that was their position throughout. Does that help?  Esseh 23:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Make sure to read the sentence in the history of Dalhousie U. about the stated objectives of the University's founder. Pretty funny for a colony that "wasn't free", wouldn't you say?  Esseh 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please clarify.  You just said "I suggest, rather, that you, Driftwoodzebulin, supply a source that shows that the UK did not want to stop fighting, or had demands beyond the cessation of hostilities and status quo ante bellum."  Apparently in response to my statement that if "the british had no demands and simply stopped fighting once the americans stopped fighting" that this fact deserves mention with a source in the article.  I have searched for all manner of sources on the war aims of both sides but why pray tell do you think the only sources deserving addition to the article will be those which demonstrate "that the UK did not want to stop fighting, or had demands beyond the cessation of hostilities and status quo ante bellum."  Do you have some reason to believe those are the only sources I could find?  Are you holding out on us?  why not just provide the sources yourself if you know of sources that support the notion that the UK did not want to stop fighting.  Unless of course you're bluffing and such sources do not exist.  I reiterate my desire to see some material added to the article that clarifies that the UK had no war aims and I have no idea why you think this fact is unimportant.  Hopefully I misunderstood you.Zebulin 07:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomatic course of the war? 

message: Hi DZ - good job policing the vandalism of late. I did notice that you weren't warning the vandals, though. Just for you, here's my template: ~~~~. Change number for level. I find it handy, instead of remembering. (I have a good memory, but it's short...) Stick it anywhere needed (... um... sorry that didn't sound right - you know what I mean...) Esseh 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos to Driftwoodzebulin! 

message: For those who have stated herein that Canadians were not free, I would like to offer the following quote: Canada's political relation to Great Britain, and, indeed, to all other countries, has been essentially altered by Canada's quite voluntary engagement in the war. Were feudal terms not largely inapplicable, one might aver that the vassal has become the suzerain's ally, political equality connoted.
But, indeed, Canadians were never vassals. They have ever been Britons, whatever their individual origins, retaining the liberties of their political birthright. While in a certain tutelage to their own monarchs' immediate Ministries, they have continually, slowly, consciously, expanded their freedom from such tutelage, substituting for it self-government or rule by their own representatives, without forsaking but rather enhancing their allegiance to the common Crown. This has long been the symbol of their self-government, even as it is to old country kinsmen the symbol of rule by themselves. The citation? E.W. Thomson, in The New York Times, April, 1915. Read it here. How much changed in the view over a mere 103 years! Just a bit of food for thought. Esseh 07:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. This was published while Canadians were being gassed during the Second Battle of Ypres. Esseh 07:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little something... 

message: Is there a real purpose to this section? Wiki articles typically do not have such an overview after the intruductory paragraph. Would seem structurally better to do straight from the introduction into the "Causes" Epeeist smudge 13:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Thought it was rather odd.  It should at least be condensed.  The article seems redundant. Mcflytrap 14:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: Although this section does mention rate of fire (estimated as roughly 3-4 times that of comparable French and Spanish vessels of the time), it seems to suggest that the Royal Navy was having trouble because of this: in fact it was this very factor which was cited, and still is cited, as the decider in many of the RN's engagements of this period, including Trafalgar, Copenhagen and The Nile - accuracy doesn't really come into it when your MO is close-range broadsides. You see those battle scenes in Pirates of the Caribbean? That's actually how it worked. You sidled up to the other lot and let fly, and if there was anything left you might board it, or come around for a second pass. The morale of the tars is also mentioned as being low due to conscription (press ganging is the term), but whilst this might seem an obvious result of impressment, the fact is you could go from cabin boy to senior officer in relatively little time. Low morale would be better explained by the ongoing peninsular war and having to fight Napoleon's allies/business partners (he'd literally just sold Louisiana) who'd interfered in the affairs of Europe for decades (French Revolution, anyone?), weren't well liked to begin with (1776 tax break) and could reasonably be said by the man of the time in the street to be a root cause of Napoleon's rise to power. 
As to numbers of seamen available, Peninsular War. Seriously. Don't try to analyse this conflict in isolation. 
The war of 1812 is not little known in Britain! We burned down the damn White House, you don't forget that you frame it tastefully  and make the US ambassador walk past it on his way in. The war is actually taught at GCSE and A-level history standards (and above), although whether it is offered depends on availability of relevant materiel and personnel to a given school/college. I believe one of the causes cited when I was studying it was actually slavery, as the cheaper prices offered by free labour to grow and produce cotton threatened Britain's historic dominance of the textiles industry (in Europe), around which the majority of today's major British cities (and a few forgotten ones) had made and kept their fortunes, for about 600-700 years prior to this conflict. Incidentally, fighting a slave-trading country when you yourselves have recently got on the wagon, so to speak, is a political masterstroke. 
Finally, and it is finally, the British Navy got whupped hard in its first engagement of the First World War, as anyone who's ever seen a shiny destroyer will have heard. So we're four years out on that, too. 172.143.144.156 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consequences -Great Britain (and probably the rest)

message: In any other similar situation where a nation invades another country in an attempt to capture land but is repulsed, it is deemed to be a defeat for the aggressor. Take for example the Falklands War, Argentina launches an invasion of British territory and raises it flag. Britain sends a task force and restores the situation to 'status quo ante bellum'. Do we regard this as a draw? Not unless you subscribe to the 'Alice in Wonderland' school of history.
Americans may want to call it a draw, but the British achieved their aim aim of repelling the invader.
:Argentina had territorial claims on the Falkland islands.  The US was not making territorial claims on the british empire.  Are you saying that if a country invades another country/empire and doesn't get territorial concessions at the end of the war then it automatically lost the war?  I don't remember that the Uk gained any territory from Russia in the Crimean war and yet nobody seriously suggests that the Uk therefore lost the war.  Just because the Uk invaded Russia does not mean it was seeking to annex Russian territory.  Just because the US invaded the british empire in the war of 1812 does not mean it was seeking British territory.Zebulin 22:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US was not making territorial claims on the british empire - What exactly do you mean? One of the war aims was to incorporate Canada into the United States and "free it" from British rule. That sounds like one big territorial claim to me. Sometimes maintaining the status quo is a victory cos u defend urself . However, in this situation it seems that the British were eager to exploit there successful defence of Canada through their offensive actions in America so then again there is reason to consider an American victory in that perspective. Tourskin 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which source is this from?  A war aim was to incorporate Canada into the US?  Are you sure you don't mean they wanted to seize Canada as a bargaining chip?Zebulin 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles Like ThisGive The Whole Wikipedia Project A Bad Name 

message: Does anybody know which if any of the sources for this article support these various numbers?Zebulin 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources for strength in Infobox? 

message: There's goodly portion of text from the Causes of War section duplicated in the introduction. I'd fix it, but I'm not sure about the best way to go about it (I'm more comfortable doing minor copyedit and editing technical articles). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 07:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated text? 

message: This "war hawk" stuff has to go.  No problem mentioning that the goal of *some* leaders was expansion, but the way it is written has anger written all over it.  Hardly neutral. Mcflytrap 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of the War

message: The proper term for reffering to an indigenous group of people is Aboriginal.  I don't know how to petition to have to changed so I thought I would do so here.
Either term is fine.  Individuals may have varied reactions to either term but as both are non-specific general terms I don't think there is need for concern with respects to either of them constituting offensive terminology.Zebulin 16:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically Incorrect 

message: Who put that in and why? It was definatly not a tactical draw. In reality, it was a tactical victory for Britain, but since this article seems to have a US bias I would be content to just have nothing there, but this tactical draw must not stand! lol. But seriously if I changed it to tactical victory Britain, I wouldn't stand a chance against everybody, so even though I think the article is a bit biased, I would still rather the reader decide for himself who won, so I will take it out soon. P.S. someone will no doubt tell me to point out specific biases in the article so here's one right off the bat... Tactical draw. Also I don't have the time or complete expertise to go over the entire article so please don't ask me to change it. Zildjianrulez 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it and returned it back to how it was. God knows how a war's result can be tactical victory unless the war consisted of a single battle (And even then, it doesn't really sit right). I think Status Quo Ante Bellum is all we need to have. Because it lets the reader make their own mind up. Was Status Quo a victory for the British? Was it a draw? Was it possibly a victory for the Americans, who consider that they got their non-terratorial war aims with no terratorial loss? Infoboxes should not be used as a catchall. They are simple 'at a glance' information. Lets keep the controversies out of them, and if necessary, point people to the appropiate controvesy section in the article. Narson 09:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for removing it and I agree completely Narson. As I stated before I think it is best to have nothing and let the reader determine for himself what the result was. I am not looking to start a conflict and I think the article is sufficient. The only specific thing I am crying foul about is the tactical draw, but that has been changed so everthing is good enough now. Zildjianrulez 10:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Given that war ultimately decided nothing, calling the outcome anything besides "status quo ante bellum" veers into POV territory.  Let's leave it at that. 68.40.65.164 07:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactical Draw???