Talk:War of 1812/Archive 8

message: I think this is sort of common wisdom now - regardless of # of casualties or who won what victory when or who burned whose capital and which was more important, both countries FELT like they had won the war. Technically one might call it a draw, given the status quo ante bellum treaty ending. It would be more accurate, though - if more abstract - to look at the issue from a historiographic view and let both sides be the victors, since both sides felt that way. 
So who lost the war? Easy answer to that one: the Indians. 
Incidentally I noticed Pierre Berton's account is not on the reference list (unless I'm overlooking it). I thought it was a good read, if perhaps a little pro-Canada. Dmhaglund 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the Americans got the ability to head to the west and take all whilst the British held onto Canada. Victory for all.Tourskin 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Getting to keep Canada is a victory?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.185.164 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, getting to keep Canada is a victory.Acanadian 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: They BOTH won the war

message: It seems that the war lives on in the minds of many contributors to this talk page. However, the Treaty of Ghent was signed by the combatants in 1814-1815. The result: Status quo ante bellum. The article reflects this. 
This page is for discussion of changes to the article—not for endless rehashing of the war. Read the archives. It has all been said before.  If you must discuss it, find a blog. Time to move on. Sunray 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh..yeah. Thanks for the information. It is completely relevant to be discussed here because this page is one of the most pro US biased pages on Wikipedia that I have come across. A facet of information for this page is being discussed. If you don't like it, you simply don't have to read it. This page constantly reflects people unhappy with the US bias on this page.This is wikipedia, people should be free to discuss problems with a page as much as they feel the need. Deathlibrarian 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, I think we should bring some focus to your concern. The debate over who won has been continuing for three years. That is not germane to these pages. So how about you raise some specific points that document your concern about bias. Then, perhaps we can deal with them. Sunray 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: let's start with just the overview.  Can you name specific US achievements that should be removed there?  Can you name some British achievments that should be added there?  Let's see if we even agree that the overview at least is balanced before tackling the rest of the article.Zebulin 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea that both sides won is interesting. The Americans won pride and nationalism and with it the ability to conquer the west without too much British interference. The British were able to hold on to their lightly defended colony and pursue a so called "Gunboat diplomacy". Tourskin 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: News flash: THE WAR OF 1812 IS OVER!!!

message: Why has all the smaller parts of the British Empire been listed? Should we list all the states of the USA at this stage as well? Don't forget that whilst the listed combatants on the British side all have the Union Jack, the American states had their own flags, further strengthening my argument:
* We should either list the states of the US as well
OR
* Just label it as British Empire only.
I prefer the second option - in theory whenever the British Empire gose to war, volunteers can be raised from any of her colonies and yet we don't see a long list in every British Empire war.Tourskin 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point, but I disagree with it here. Reasoning being that there was a marked difference in training and quality between the British regulars (who wore red uniforms and probably came from England) and the Canadian militia (who didn't). The American forces were relatively more uniform in comparison. Bermuda hardly seems relevant as a 'combatant' though; I will remove it. Dmhaglund 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its got the British Empire and Canada now. Tourskin 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems reasonable, as the Canadian militia took a major role; are you saying it is unreasonable? If it's any help, the French and Indian War article lists Britain and American Colonies as separate combatants. And as to the second point, members of the British Empire didn't automatically go to war when Britain did; to use the same example, American colonial militias fought alongside British regulars in North America, where it was in their interests to do so; they didn't, and weren't expected to, send troops to fight with the British army in Europe, or India, or any other theatre of the war. (anyway, I only came here over "Decisive British victory", but it's been fixed already; does thispage have its own rapid response team?) Xyl 54 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Combatants 

message: Someone edited this page to say "war hawks" and other things that seem unbecoming of an encyclopedic article. Also, to say in the body of the article:
(According to the book by textbook author James W. Loewen in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me") The most important cause of the war was land, Spanish land (Florida), British land (Canada), and the biggest chunk of land was the Indians land. After war was declared Britain offered to withdraw the trade restrictions, but it was too late for the American "War Hawks", who turned the conflict into what they called a "second war for independence."
While the officially-stated reasons for declaring war were ending impressment, ending harassment of mercantile shipping, and ending British military support for western native tribes, a major goal of the "war hawks" in the western and southern states was aggressive territorial expansion. 
This seems more like an expression of opinion than anything. While I don't necessarily think that this following statement is true, I do think that it would be much more appropriate than the current one.
My proposed revision: "While the officially-stated reasons for declaring war were --such-and-such--, --such-and-such-scholar-- believed that a major goal of those American politicians in favor of the war in the western and southern states was territorial expansion.(some citation listed here)"
Since no citation is given for this statement here, I would say that it needs to be removed, since it is a biased statement based on original research or non-cited sources.
Even my proposed version seems to be weasely, so I think that this should be written to "show" and not just to "tell" the reader what to think.
At very least, the statement that "a major goal of the "war hawks"...(etc.)" should be qualified by a phrase that indicates that it is a view of someone in particular, instead of just flat-out saying it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotbeat (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the War Hawks were a recognizable faction who figured prominently in the debate about going to war, I certainly think that it is appropriate to mention them. However, we do need better citations for this section. Couldn't that be dealt with by placing "citation needed" tags on the specific statements that need citations? Sunray 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "War hawks" terminology 

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

message: Was spain truely involved in the war of 1812? I find this an unlikely idea, considering it was,
until 1814, a puppet of the French. Narson 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the information was removed and not re-inputted, so I suspect it was mis-information vandalism. Narson 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain?` 

message: Did France play a part in the war?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.244.191 (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. France was fighting a war against Great Britain and the Sixth Coaltion at the time, but there was never a formal alliance between the United States and the French Empire.--GABaker 1635 UTC 12 December 2007  —Preceding comment was added at 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: France

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