Talk:Results of the War of 1812

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger Discussion[edit]

Let's not vote. As long as there are no substantive objections I think we should go forward with the merge.—thames 22:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to be moved at all? because it needs to be. As noted below alot of the text is substrated directly from the 'references'. It either needs to be moved or be put up as NPOV / WP:Cleanup. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --chrisgeorge 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with attention to the copyright issue raised below. -- Alarob 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see why there should be two separate articles one which includes a section on "Results" of the war and the other one "Consequences." It would seem to me to make more sense to have all together in one place, so I vote to merge them.

Hard to see why they wouldnt be together. Who came up with that?

chris id just like to point out somthing i think that should be changes "The United States had faced near disaster in 1814, but the victories at the Battle of New Orleans" new orleans was fough after the peace treaty

Done Civil Engineer III 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringements?[edit]

It looks to me that the references for this article are NOT just references - entire paragraphs have been copied from several of them --JimWae 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Indian section[edit]

The section provides an extremely distorted, if not racist, description of American relations with First Nations. It contains three references to "Indian threats" when these "threats" may not have existed and if they did, it would have been Native people defending their land from encroachment.

It also makes the incorrect statement that most Indians were "removed from the Great Lakes region." In fact, many Native Americans continue to live around the Great Lakes on and off reservations in the United States and reserves in Canada. While it would be correct to say they were moved to reserves/reservations in the region, it is wrong to say most were removed from the region.Tingkai 10:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does Tingkai think the Indian threats existed, or did they not exist and were a figment of the imagination? Rjensen 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an Indian threat to the security of the frontier areas did exist. Whether the Indians were justified in their motives is not the point in this case, since the statement refers to a strategic rather than moral issue. But the article is definitely wrong in saying that the War of 1812 ended it.

"In the treaty the British promised not to arm the Indians in the U.S. from Canada (nor even trade with them), and the U.S.-Canada border was largely pacified. However, some Americans assumed that the British continued to conspire with their former Indian allies in an attempt to forestall U.S. hegemony in the Great Lakes region. Such perceptions were faulty, argues Calloway (1987). After the Treaty of Ghent, the Indians became an undesirable burden to British policymakers. They now looked to North America for markets and raw materials. British agents in the field continued to meet regularly with their former Indian partners, but they did not supply arms or encouragement for Indian campaigns to stop American expansionism."

The latter statement flies in the face of history, ignores the roots of the first Seminole War, and should be deleted. Whether the conflict over the Indian problem "became an undesirable burden to British policymakers" is not the point in this case, any more than whether or not the Indians had the moral high ground. Both may be true, but they do not justify the latter statement, which ignores the fact that the British did continue to try to stop American expansionism with Indians and runaway slaves after the war was over. That they did this indirectly and perhaps without universal popularity among British policymakers is not the point.Shield2 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after 1815 the British government had little to do with the Seminoles of Florida (Florida belonged to Spain). Of course Florida was nowhere near Canada Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacking of Washington?[edit]

Why no mention of the sacking of Washington? The burning of the White House? or the American loss at Bladensburg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.106.90 (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

it was easy to rebuild the government buildings; and paint the presidential mansion White. America knew all about losing its national capital--the Brits did it several times in 1777-8. Rjensen 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with the course of events? Many battles have taken place over the centuries, should we then just list one article "War" and say "A bunch of people fought." and refer every other article back to that one?

If a truly objective article is to be reached, events should be listed as they happen. Conclusions and results are by their very nature subjective, but if you're reporting a series of events, list the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.174.177 (talk) 19:10, August 24, 2007 (UTC) Fully endorse the above complaint. As for the article itself, well, I've never before read such a pile of Whiggish, USA-centic - words do fail me. Please can we have a rewrite from NPOV? Jatrius 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone listen to you? Your hatred of Americans is very evident in your posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.242.69 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph[edit]

Why is the policy of Impressment mentioned as an outcome of the war, when this was suspended prior to the war and was not an element of the Treaty of Ghent? This unduly serves to justify & portray the war in a positive light, by incorrectly claiming a positive outcome. Fehrgo 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading this, it would seem to be a simple victim of bad wording. It should be emphasized that the policy was suspended independently of the war, and that the war did not play in to this event. Fehrgo 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
impressment was NOT suspended in 1812 -- only after Napoleon was defeated in 1814. (some of the restrictions on trading with France were meant)Rjensen 08:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Secord[edit]

I removed a reference to her as an example of an otherwise uninvolved former American who supported the British in Canada as she was married to a Loyalist who was wounded by Americans earlier in the war, while her actions may have been extrordiary, the reasons for her loyalties are fairly obvious. PreciousRoi (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Britain Bias?[edit]

"The Royal Navy was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won most of the single-ship duels during the War however it was also aware of the different American classification system; it bent this later fact to its own advantage however."

Single-ship duels only made up one part of the combat, there were many other forms of battle, the different American classification system is irrelevant, and "it bent this later fact to its own advantage however" is a biased statement (in addition to being badly worded), because one can't say that the entire Royal Navy is "bending" facts (i.e. lying) about prior victories. This is just one example of the anti-Britain bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krumpking2001 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant POV bias throughout the article. The introductory paragraph alone is phrased in such a way to suggest that conflict was a US victory, when in reality it was a draw for both sides. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Honours[edit]

In the British section the article says that the only battle honour awarded for the war was Detroit. This is untrue. At least one other award was made. The 1st Regiment of Foot was awarded the battle honour Niagara.Shipman7 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By saying that the British only awarded one battle honour for the War is simply not true. The Battle Honour for Niagara was awarded to the 1st Regiment, 6th Regiment, 8th Regiment, 19th Light Dragoons, 41st Regiment, and the 89th Regiment. To name a few! Captain 89th (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Kevin Windsor[reply]

Uh...."never again"??[edit]

I noticed this:

Britain had stopped impressing seamen, and never again pursued its disputes with the U.S. to the point of risking war

but what about the Trent Affair??Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uh, gee, and the Oregon Boundary Dispute, the San Juan Dispute, the Alaska Boundary Dispute?? All came close to war, and teh San Juan Dispute briefly was war....Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nowhere close to war. All those issues were quickly settled. The San Juan Dispute involved a couple small uninhabited islands and the only casualty was one dead pig (albeit a large one)--compare that to the Crimean War at about the same time. Rjensen (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Canada[edit]

When reading the section on Canada, the article ceases to sound encyclopedic and begins to wax poetic. What's the intent of the section? To objectively explain Canada's role and illuminate their part and point out the repercussions of such; or is it to bring a tear to the eye of many a Canadian? Jersey John (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Results of the War of 1812[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Results of the War of 1812's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

  • From Battle of Waterloo: "No. 17028". The London Gazette. 22 June 1815.
  • From Napoleon: Sudhir Hazareesingh, "Memory and Political Imagination: the Legend of Napoleon Revisited." French History, 2004 18(4): 463–483
  • From New Orleans: Glassman, James K., "New Orleans: I have Seen the Future, and It's Houston", The Atlantic Monthly, July 1978
  • From Origins of the War of 1812: Dwight L. Smith, "A North American Neutral Indian Zone: Persistence of a British Idea" Northwest Ohio Quarterly 1989 61(2–4): 46–63
  • From Florida: A History of Florida By Caroline Mays Brevard, Henry Eastman Bennett
  • From Southern United States: "Table 1. Type of Ancestry Response for Regions, Divisions and States: 1980" (PDF). census.gov.
  • From British Empire: Lloyd, p. 335.
  • From Creek War: Thrower. "Casualties and Consequences of the Creek Civil War." in Rethinking Tohopeka, 12.
  • From Federalist Party: Miller "The Federalist Era 1789-1801"
  • From Erie Canal: Wedding of the Waters: The Erie Canal and the Making of a Great Nation, Peter L. Bernstein

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further
Pratt (1955), pp. 135–7.
Watts (1989) pg???
Weigley (1973) pg???
Wiltse (1944) pg???

honor vs honour[edit]

Canadian dictionaries say both spellings are ok in Canadian English (eg GAGE DICTIONARY). Note that in dealing with Americans, Canadian government uses "or" version--eg from Trudeau's website:

Itinerary for Friday, March 10, 2017 | Prime Minister of Canada for media: Pooled photo opportunity only 10:15 a.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the Governor of Texas, the Honorable Greg Abbott. Marriott Marquis Houston Houston, Texas United States of America Note for media: Pooled photo opportunity only 11:00 a.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the United States Senator for Alaska, the Honorable Lisa Ann Murkowski URL: pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/03/09/itinerary-friday-march-10-2017 Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

This article states: "Washington wanted Thomas Jefferson to do the right thing and that is end the war with great Britain by a treaty." It isn't clear here if Washington refers to the person (the first president) or the seat of government (located in Washington, D.C.), but in either case, Jefferson wasn't even president during the War of 1812 which presumably is the "war with great (sic) Brtain" being referred to here. Of course, if Washington refers to the former president, how did he communicate to Jefferson (who still wasn't the president) his desire for him to "do the right thing" even after his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:4280:A710:544C:55A5:4620:4A5A (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Results_of_the_War_of_1812&oldid=1220526385"