Talk:War of 1812/Archive 6

message: I noticed that someone has changed the result to no victory, or made reference to the treaty of Ghent...but as far as I'm aware, the British at the time claimed this as a victory. I can't find anything online, but does anyone know? If so it should be noted in the article. Access to British Papers from the time or British Hansard should do the trick.
Deathlibrarian 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: bloody nose at the Battle of new orleans, say? The Brits made a terrible blunder in getting into a war they did not need. Rather bad diplomacy one muct say, and a good reason to forget it, which they have.  Rjensen 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are no references to show that the US really just wanted Canada.  It is interesting how quick so many commentators here are to brush under the rug all other grievances officially declared and much discussed in the lead in to the war by the Americans involved in the decision to declare war.Zebulin 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deathlibrarian, this has been brought up a million times, and the result has always been the same.  The way it is written now is very fair.  There is no way that a British/Canadian victory will become the accepted version.  My suggestion - do some research on Canada and document some more of its history.  It might be more fulfilling to actually write articles than to fight an endless losing battle over a line in an infobox. Haber 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The US obtained: end to impressment, end to trade restriction re France, end of arming the Indians, and the US destroyed the power of the Indians in both Midwest and South. And demolished an elite British army in the biggest and last battle. Best of all US won a sense of final independence -- no more British invasions to worry about. Seems a pretty good package for USA. Rjensen 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's fair to say that the US achieved all of it's goals.  The strongest statement that could be made is that the US had all of it's *declared* war aims fullfilled (some before war was even declared!).  The accusation that at least one of the real though undeclared US goals of the war was to drive the British Empire out of Canada cannot be seriously challenged IMHO.Zebulin 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's an old Canadian myth that no longer is believed by experts. Rjensen 22:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: so the experts used to believe it?  such a change in established consensus would presumably be well doccumented.  Can you cite a reference for this current understanding that the US did not intend to drive the british empire out of north america?Zebulin 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gladly: [x Origins war 1812 article]: The idea that one cause of the war was American expansionism or desire for Canadian land was much discussed among historians before 1940, but is rarely cited by experts any more. Hacker (1924); Pratt (1925). Goodman (1941) refuted the idea and even Pratt gave it up. Pratt (1955) Some Canadian historians propounded the notion in the early 20th century, and it survives in Canadian mythology. W. Arthur Bowler, "Propaganda in Upper Canada in the War of 1812," American Review of Canadian Studies (1988) 28:11-32; C.P. Stacey, "The War of 1812 in Canadian History" in  Morris Zaslow and Wesley B. Turner, eds. The Defended Border: Upper Canada and the War of 1812 (Toronto, 1964)  Madison and his advisors believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their West Indies colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Frontiersmen demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land (they had plenty), but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking settlement of the west. Stagg (1983) As Horsman concludes, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it."Horsman (1962) p. 267  Hickey flatly states, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war."  Hickey (1990) p. 72. Brown (1964) concludes, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation not to annex Canada." Brown  p. 128.  Burt, a leading Canadian scholar, agrees completely, noting that Foster, the British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal. Burt (1940) pp 305-10.  [endquote] Rjensen 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: even if this fails to convince anybody that the US had no desire to drive the british out of North America I nonetheless expect this fine referencing effort will help keep a lid on the accusations that annexing Canada was the primary US goal of the war.  It bears repeating until such accusers finally begin to understand the situationZebulin 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Treaty of Paris of 1783: The British award the Americans all lands west of the Mississippi and South of the Lakes. Signed by George iii himself. The Indians under Tecumseh & his brother the Prophet began an anti-white revival religious movement to destroy all whites (and get arms from the British). That had to stop. Rjensen 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think Rjensen was so much personally passing judgment on Tecumsehs actions as describing how those actions constituted causa belli with respect to the US and the british empire due to the military support tecumseh received from the British empire.  At the very least it could be recognized as deeply hypocritical and provocative for the british empire to trade with Tecumseh who was at war with the US while preventing the US from trading with europe ostenably due to the british empires right to block trade with it's enemies.Zebulin 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: nonsense.  How was nappy going to attack britain? balloons?  By the time the war of 1812 was looming Brits were far less threatened by napolean than US citizens in the west were threatened by Tecumsehs war against the US.  It's absurd to suggest that selling arms to Tecumseh while he was at war with the US government was non provocative while selling foodstuffs to continental europe was somehow unacceptable.Zebulin 08:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: funny that you should mention the Mexican war.  The US decisively defeated the entire Mexican military in that war and effectively ended all armed mexican resistance.  And yet they didn't annex the economically largest areas of Mexico.  There was nothing to stop them from annexing all of mexico except their desire to avoid having a large hostile population to govern.  If all Americans wanted was land and as much as they could militarily take how do you explain their decision to not simply conquer and annex mexico outright instead of settling for the thinly populated outlying territories?  The obvious problem with any proposed annexation of Canada is that unlike Mexico all of the most densely populated portions of Canada lay between the US and the thinly populated portions of Canada.  It would not have been possible to annex any significant portion of Canada without being forced to attempt to govern a large hostile population.Zebulin 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British claim this as a victory?

message: I'm a middle school student and I was asked by my tacher to do some trivia on the War of 1812. I have a question i'm stuck on mind helping. The question is Which famous ship was called "Old Ironside?" Why was it called this? Thanks
USS Constitution - called old iron sides because it was covered in sheets of Iron across the hull making cannon balls bounce off. Nice ship, but she's got nothing on HMS Victory ;o) [Pagren] 
:Ironsides (USS Constitution) was all oak.  no iron plating.  it was *thick* oak though and cannon shot did bounce off the sides hence the name.Zebulin 17:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Of 1812 

message: Look at the two images:
What do you think?The Anonymous One 01:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Images