Talk:War of 1812/Archive 1

message: I've added the following line in the first paragraph under the heading of Operations on the Great Lakes and Canadian Border:
Former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson dismissively referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching."
The quotation from Jefferson seems to sum initial US attitudes to the conflict and has become a fairly well-known phrase in Canada. I don't mean to be dismissive of U.S. views, but AFAIK it's an accurate quote. Comments welcome.
Madmagic 07:32, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)
:Pierre Berton tells me Jefferson's actual quote was "a mere matter of marching" but I'm not going to edit that since I've heard it both ways and who knows which one is correct? Not me! But the fact that he said it makes me think that it's just a fine thing to include. Lord Bob 21:34, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
::Well you could say '...conquest of Canada as a "matter of marching."' to cover both possibilities? McKay 08:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actual quote is from Jefferson's letter to W. Duane on Aug 8, 1812, "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent."  So it's not Canada he thought to be a cakewalk, just Quebec.
--
Until 1791 and the Constitutional Act, the colony of Quebec included what are now Ontario and Quebec. The Act divided Quebec into Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec).  The Jefferson quote could be interpreted any number of ways, depending on whether Jefferson was only referring to taking only Quebec/Lower Canada, or also referring to the fall of British North America ie Canada as in both 'Canadas'. The capture of Quebec/Lower Canada likely would have led to the fall of British North America, as it was the seat of colonial gov't. If Jefferson were referring to Quebec in that sense, he would be correct in assuming that once Quebec was taken, the Americans could effectively control both Upper and Lower Canada and proceed to Halifax.
Upper and Lower Canada together were known as the Canadas (which had all been Quebec until the Act), so Jefferson could have also meant that both Canadas would be an easy conquest if Quebec ie Lower Canada, seat of British colonial rule, fell. It would seem that he felt the invasion of Quebec would be easier than facing Halifax, a major port for the Royal Navy.
SCrews 05:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jefferson Quote 

message: I was under the strong impression that the natives, especially Tecumseh, played an important role in this war.  However they are barely mentioned, and the name Tecumseh first appears to announce his death.  This surely needs correcting?
:I agree, though Gawd knows I'm not well-enough aware of the native contribution, outside of what they did in a few battles, to write it myself. Still, if somebody out there knows their Native North American history, now is a good time. Lord Bob 00:42, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
::I have a couple of texts on Tecumseh; I'll check them as soon as I am free to do so.  The Native Americans did play a major role as a British ally, and defeating them was one of the accomplishments of Jackson in the Southwestern Theater of the war.  GABaker
:::I have added an image of First Nations veterans of the war to the article.  Jkelly 02:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if Wikipedia has a house style on this, but we Native Americans tend to call ourselves "Indians".  If you really want to be PC, refer to the nations involved, ie, the Iroquois Nation -- since the Iroquois, we Choctaw, and the Navaho are about as different as Lapps, Italians, and Turks. Charlie (Colorado) 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Native Americans

message: It seems that the author of this article was biased in some fashion towards the British, given that at almost every possible opportunity, something derisive is said about the Americans involved in this conflict.
I don't care to hear the author's opinion of the "detestable" behavior of the American soldiers or how the British army (comprised of loyalists) "did excellent service."   It would, in my opinion, make the article more valuable for historical research, if some of the grossly editorial comments were removed and were replaced by simple facts, not subjective opinions on how the author felt each side conducted themselves.
:There isn't one author.  I've been working on trying to get the American POV through without offending the Canadian and British POVs.  I do think you might be right; let the deeds do the talking.--GABaker
There's a big part of the problem: "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica." 1911! That explains the archaic style and expressions like "behaved detestably" and "ignorant of a soldier's business".
----
This page suggests that responsible government was an American idea yet the article itself on responsible government and other Canadian historical sources say it was a British idea. What is the conflict? SD6-Agent 01:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Responsible government article. I think it means more, that governments have to be responsible to the legislature, so that cabinet ministers need to be in parliament to report on their activities and to answer questions, as opposed to being cronies of the head of state/government. (BTW the May 19th comments were mine, I hadn't figured out the fourl tilde thing.) Luigizanasi 05:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, but note that the ability of Parliament to bring down the government with a confidence vote is way that it holds cabinet responsible.  That's why most people refer to that particular point when they're talking about reponsible government — it's the aspect that distinguishes it most sharply from other forms of representational government (though note that in the U.S. cabinet secretaries do not sit in congress, either), and the aspect most visible to the public (since it results in unpredicatable, and sometimes, frequent elections).  David 14:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found that this article isn't very objective. 

message: I'm not a native English speaker. In my mother tongue an American is someone born in America, the same way as a European is someone born in Europe.
So, when the article says that at that time 1/3 of Canadians were born in America I understood that the other third were born in Europe, Asia, Africa...
But after reading it other time I've realised what they meant is that they were born in the USA!
This problem is just mine, and American is an unambiguous term in English, or it would be better to clarify it?
:In English, 'American' almost always refers to somebody born in the United States. You're not the first non-native English speaker to have this problem and I'm sure you won't be the last. Lord Bob 02:04, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
::Right, and even more specifically in the United States and Canada, "American" refers only to people from the United States. Some Canadians would be offended if you called them Ameicans :) Adam Bishop 09:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience having lived my whole life in either Canada or Australia tells me that if I were to refer to a United States-er as an American, 999 out of 1,000 times the person will know what I mean. Your mileage may vary. Lord Bob 03:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Remember that ours (US) is the only country on the two continents to use the word "America" in our name. Thus, we are called "Americans" by the world, and our country is called "America" , "United States" "The U.S." "U.S.A." interchangably. For example, throughout the middle east, the country would be called America ("Amreki"). More generally, I see this topic of "calling the USA and it's people America/Americans" come up now and then, and I noticed a trend: I've found that 9 out of 10 times, it's an American who is complaining about the issue. I tried to explain the whole issue to a person from Argentina, and I'm afraid they were only mildly interested. Dxco 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I told Sir John A. Macdonald that we should have called it British North America. Dabbler 17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, fair enough, 'America' = 'United States' isn't very good. I just find 'American' a lot easier than, say, 'United Stateser', but then, I'm inconsistent. Lord Bob 18:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is an American? 

message: I tried cleaning up the section about the naval war, to make it a little more readable, but it is still very American-centric. It doesn't really explain the strategy of either side, or give any descriptions of the actions of the British.
The remainder of the article could do with a cleanup and creation of a proper structure, and I agree wholeheartedly with the removal of the glossary.
3mta3 11:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.  Jkelly 05:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. That particular tag requires the author to put a justification on the talk page. See Wikipedia:POV check for instructions. Luigizanasi 05:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: There seems to be no reason for the addition of the POV check tag at the top of this article. There is certainly no new indication of any POV problem on this page and the person inserting it has no other contributions to Wikipedia. What is the process for removing an unwarranted POV check tag? Dabbler 04:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.  Jkelly 05:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. That particular tag requires the author to put a justification on the talk page. See Wikipedia:POV check for instructions. Luigizanasi 05:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check 

message: To view (and edit) all of the campaign boxes that appear at the bottom of the individual battle boxes, see:  War of 1812/Campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Myers (talk • contribs) 05:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this be moved out of the namespace? into a project page (into wikipedia:xxx) or something? JDR 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaigns

message: Hey. The Battle of Queenston Heights was just put up for peer review by yours truly, and I figured I'd shamelessly solicit opinion from the War of 1812philes in the audience. So, anybody who could offer input on the review in question would have my eternal gratitude. Lord Bob 17:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Queenston Heights]] Peer Review 

message: How does anyone know, which books and other sources were used to create this article?  I suggest we use the title "Further reading" and sort them.  The list of books on the War of 1812 is huge, it may require a separate article to list them.  Battlefield 15:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good practice for editors to write down their sources when they do an article. I say it's good practice despite the fact that I hardly ever remember to do it, but I imagine that's where most of the sources came from. Still, a further reading section would be a good idea. We don't need to list all the books on the War, just the major ones...we're an encyclopaedia, not a library. Lord Bob 16:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hello Friends,
Without starting WW3, might I suggest that we shorten this section to one paragraph and then use a "Main Article" link, this section and the article are becoming to long.  Input welcome Battlefield 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consequences of the War

message: I created a stub called "Warof1812-stub" this will allow all the stubs to be aggregated for this topic under one  roof.  I you know of any War of 1812 articles that are flagged  stubs to the "General Military" please replace them with the new stub, so we can get better control of them.  Thanks 
Battlefield 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubs