Talk:War of 1812/Archive 2

message: Chronology of the War of 1812 Still needs some work, but it has many of the key events for the Origins and actual conflict of the War of 1812.  Enjoy SirIsaacBrock 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chronology of the War of 1812]]

message: I'm a touch uncomfortable with the last section "...the Americans had drafted a plan in late 1814 for severing the Upper St Lawrence River during 1815 and it is interesting to speculate what may have occured had the war continued through 1815"
There is an obvious danger of making what if's without context. We could just as easily say that had the war gone on then 100+ Royal Navy ships of the line would have been freed by the ending of the Napoleonic wars (-v- ~17 US ships) or speculate that the Duke of Wellington would have been sent with the army of spain to take on the US. I'm not sure how profitable either line is so I urge we remove the 1815 speculation and  leave it at the plan to block the StL.Alci12 19:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that section is quite small and fairly harmless, so I'm not worried about it. If memory serves me right, Wellington thought that the colonies were screwed anyway if the war went on because, despite the British mastery of the oceans, they had lost the Great Lakes and thus given the Americans a great advantage. Simply having a large number of veteran soldiers around didn't mean everything, as Prevost proved as Plattsburgh, and at any rate it's impossible to imagine the British footing the bill for sending Wellington's entire army over. Lord Bob 19:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fear you memory fails you then. Wellington didn't want to go to America (he was rather busy at the time and fed up of proposals to send forces everywhere but where they would be militarily useful - south america/ walcheren), but was quite clear he would if ordered go, the plan was the governments and the cost affordable - fraction of the loans Britain was offering to continental powers in 1814.    Britain dominated the oceans not the great lakes because she was fighting a global war which necesitated blockading/fighting France on the oceans and left little to spare for the lakes - in terms of manpower or finance; both would free up on the end of the N war. What ifs are bad historial practice avoided by all good sources and often POV it does nothing to wikis good that they crop up so often in articles  Alci12 14:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history.  We're currently looking for the task force people to joint so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Military History Task Force

message: This Category has been tagged for Speedy Deletion comments welcome HERE.  Battlefield 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created that category to gather articles more relivent to canadian military history for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force , please don't deleate it Mike McGregor (Can) 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters)]]

message: Opinions on whether the following articles can/should have a campaign box:
*Raid on Elizabethtown
*Raid on Gananoque
SirIsaacBrock 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion Request

message: I notice the consequences section has become quite large, I suggest we move this section to it's own article and leave a summary in it's place.  Please let me know what you think.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote Results of the War of 1812 without moving over much information from the main article to avoid edit wars.  However, I suggest we combine the two sections into the new article to make the main article smaller and more manageable.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, go for it. Previous discussions have pointed out that this article is to long, so you should not get much grief. I suspect most would support you. Luigizanasi 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: could I suggest: 1) "detroit frontier" remains "American North-West" to also include Tecumseh's Ohio campaign, raids along Lake Erie, Mackinac, etc 2)"Niagara campaigns" becomes "Niagara campaingns and Lake Ontario" to include the raids on York, Sacketts Harbour, Oswego, etc. 3) Naval Engagements be given a sub-section for the Great Lakes/Lake Champlain (as the Provincial Marine was a somewhat seperate force from the Royal Navy).  Mike McGregor (Can) 12:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consequences section

message: The section on the consequences has more content than the "main" article Results of the War of 1812.  The section should be summarized in one or two paragraphs, and the rest of the content moved.—thames 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. :-) Luigizanasi 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Sunray 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Much agreed. Also merging of the Origins of the War of 1812. It doesn't make sense for these to be separate. --Parenthetical Guy 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: I don't want to get into an edit war but I am really puzzled by your claim that timber trade was amajor cause of the War of 1812. I have read fairly extensively histories of the War of 1812 (and I am based in Canada but of British origin). 
I have hardly ever seen more than a passing reference to the loss of American timber for British shipbuilding. What is usually said is that American supplies being unavailable was a reason for the subsequent increase of the importance of the Baltic trade. 
I have never read anywhere timber as the primary reason for American expansionism into what would become Canadian territory. Please provide the references for your claim that it was a major cause of the war. Thanks.  Dabbler 11:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comment:-  according to Wikipedia's own article, Economic history of Britain the loss of the American colonies had no major impact on the British economy and in fact may encouraged wealth creating trade with the former colonies and other nations. Britain was able to defeat the French by its economic strength not despite its weakness. I think this whjole section is seriously misinformed as it currently stands. Dabbler 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timber trade as a major cause of the War

message: why is this section so long?  It refers to a main 'origins' article where this information is or should be located.   Most of this section should be merged to that main article and deleted from here.   If not, why have the separate 'origins' article at all? Thanks Hmains 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to shorten it but you reverted to the longer version which contained inaccuracies. If you have problems with my version, please edit that instead of just reverting. Thanks. Dabbler 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The origins section should mention that there were Americans in New England who opposed the hostilities (and were vocal about it), largely due the disruption it would cause to their cross-border trade with the Canadian colonies. Many New Englanders continued to trade with the British throughout the war, and there was even talk of secession - culminating in the Hartford Convention. This section should note that American opinion on the war was not unanimous, and that many War Hawks came from "frontier" states who stood to benefit most from the acquisition of British North American lands. SCrews 16:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  origins of the war