![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I urge editors of this article to read The Straight Dope about the War of 1812 (which I've added to it as an external link, besides giving the link here). It addresses some issues of bias in the article, particularly about the war's winners and losers, and gives some excellent references. The neutrality of the WP article would be improved by taking a lead from what this impartial (and American) source says. -- Lonewolf BC ( talk) 08:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Straight Dope is not a reliable source for the War of 1812, in that it is not a peer-reviewed historical source. Not to say that it isn't interesting, or that we cannot use it. Just that we cannot use it to determine who "won" the war. It is interesting reading and may be illuminating for many who were taught the myth. Sunray ( talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Question: "Meanwhile, following the abdication of Napoleon, 15,000 British troops were sent to North America under four of Wellington’s most able brigade commanders."
Who were the 4 brigade commanders to come from the Peninsular? Just curious, really. Carre ( talk) 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we substitute some "US" and "American" to break up all of the instances of "United States" that have replaced every instance of "American" in the article? It's a much less comfortable read now. Zebulin ( talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What do the symbols next to Tecumseh and Issac Brock mean? And what significance did Brock have in the war? Das.avatar ( talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way information about Ft. Amanda could be added to the Northwest US section?
"Fort Amanda was one of a series of forts extending north from Piqua to Ft. Meigs (present day Perrysburg), built by order of General William Henry Harrison. These forts helped supply the army protecting the Northwest from British invasion during the war of 1812. Ft. Amanda's construction began in the fall of 1812 under the directorn of Lt. Col. Robert Poague who named in Amanda in honor of his daughter. The original fort is believed to have measured 160 feet by 160 feet. Located at the head of navigation of the Auglaize River, it had a small landing with a boat yard and served as a supply post and hosptial. Soldiers built riverboats or pirogues to transport soldiers and supplies. Approximately 75 peiorgues were built during the winter of 1812-1813.
Although Ft. Amanda saw no fighting during the war, it served as an important link in this supply line. On Decwember 24, 1814, the United States and Britian signed the treaty of Ghent, which ended the war. By early 1815 the fort was abandoned and eventually taken over by local settlers. In the cemetery near the fort are 75 headstones dedicated to the memory of unknown American soldiers of the war of 1812. Some speculate these mark the graves of soldiers who were casualties of wounds or disease. The original fort is no longer standing but a granite monument was built in 1915 at the site of the original fort. The monument as well as the cemetery can be view during daylight hours."
I visited the area and would be more than happy to contribute an image of what the fort looked like, or the obliske there now.
Stepshep ( talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.13.95 ( talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to divert who won the war discussion to a discussion sub page? Perhaps that would reduce the frequency of the same arguments being rehashed over and over. Zebulin ( talk) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should apply for a permanent semi-protect given the amount of vandalism this page gets. -- Tirronan ( talk) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cutting to the actual push for war:
It seems the article currently places much of the blame for the war on the British side, while some respected scholars see that the U.S. did indeed have designs on Canada and some interested individuals used the power to select the Jeffersonian party candidate for President to pressure Madison into an ill-advised war.
Quote from the Wall Street Journal, 3/24/2007: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631654451858227.html?mod=hps_europe_at_glance_most_pop
"But the historical record on this is not heartening. During the reign of the Jeffersonians, the progenitors of today's Democrats, the congressional caucus chose the party's nominee. It was a system that yielded mediocrity, even danger. Congressional hawks pushed James Madison into the War of 1812 by demanding ever more aggressive trade restrictions against Great Britain and ultimately declaring war -- all because they wanted to absorb Canada. It ended with a stalemate in the north, the torching of the U.S. capital, and Gen. Andrew Jackson winning a victory at the Battle of New Orleans." - John Yoo, law professor at University of California, Berkeley; visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Mr. Yoo can be quoted independently. The quotation above is of his own text by his own hand.
Notably this electoral system eventually led to the infamous "corrupt bargain" and should be examined as a contributing factor to U.S. demand for war in the 1812 item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.77.5 ( talk) 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence in the overview is: The war started badly for the Americans as an attempt to invade Canada in August 1812 was repulsed by Major-General Isaac Brock, commanding a small force composed of some 350 regular British troops supported by local militias and American Indian allies, and led to the British capture of Detroit.
The term "American Indian allies" should be changed to "Native American allies" to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.225.253 ( talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In several places this article refers to "Indians." These should all be changed to Native Americans, American Indians or Amerindians, whichever is the normal naming convention. Indian is outright wrong since it refers to a person from India and we can be certain that the Indians were not in the Americas. -- 76.69.63.93 ( talk) 20:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do articles in which the American troops won or drew with the British say something on the lines of "this battle proved that American troops could hold their own against British troops if properly trained and well led"? ANYONE can hold their own against anyone else if properly trained and well led, I do believe that this statement should not hold a special reservation just for wars between Britain and the United States. ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
In the article they forgot the best part of the war: the Canadians burning most of Washington that is why the treaty was signed: they missed their parlament, lucky for them the Presidents house (White House before it was white) was still in ok shape, but burned badly so they repaired it but it was still all ashy so it was white-washed so yes Canadians rock hard :) ( 99.250.89.162 ( talk) 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
im doing a report on the war of 1812 and my history textbook says that only 16 americans ships were in the war not 18. which one is correct?
Why is the first picture of the article one of a United States loss, and not a victory, such as the Battle of New Orleans or the USS Constitution defeating the HMS Guerierre? Redsox00002 ( talk) 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No one won. Now shut up with the immature comments Redsox00002, Learn your HISTORY before you make a comment. ( Butters x ( talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
i think this is an awsome site and i am working on the war so it is an awsome site 4 kids and adults! i have 2 kittens in my hands so i can't talk...bye!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.252.253 ( talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Err...Ok... ( Butters x ( talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
That is seriously one of the funniest comments I've seen on a talk page here. Momo Hemo ( talk) 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
EasyPeasy21 deleted a section that had an OR bit in it (Not cited anymore) but was cited in general. What is the view on its deletion? Should we restore what isn't OR. Narson ( talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like just another attempt to turn this into the American/Canadian war again to me. Reading the history seems that more than a few in Congress thought that the Canadian colonist really didn't want to be part of the crown either which didn't turn out to be the case. However trying very hard to make the invasion of Canada one of the primary causes isn't the historic fact nor the one supported by the vast majority of historians. Tirronan ( talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the section for a couple of reasons:
Firstly, the section states that the view that US expansionism was a cause of the war is rarely held by historians today. I have no problem with that view, if it supported by evidence. However, the section only cites three historians from 67-83 years ago. That is not sufficient evidence for that viewpoint.
Secondly, only the names of the historians are cited, and the dates they presented their viewpoints. Names of books, publishers, and page references are needed for the citation to be allowable, imho.
I am sorry that these reasons were not stated in the edit summary of my edit. I had edited the article beforehand, and placed those reasons in the edit summary, but I accidentally edited twice the same thing, so the edit with the reasons in the edit summary was removed from the history.
Tirronan and I are working on creating a better section. EasyPeasy21 ( talk) 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to state that it is incorrect to list Newfoundland as part of the 'Canadian Provinces' when listing or discussing the belligerent parties involved in the war. Newfoundland was a colony of Great Britain until 1907, upon which it became a British Dominion and separate country. It is therefore incorrect to list Newfoundland as one of the Canadian Provinces, as it did not become as such until 1949. This should therefore be corrected, or clarification should be made as to what 'Canadian Provinces' means (i.e. what are now present day Canadian Provinces of etc.)-- Mrcooker ( talk) 10:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
there is going to be some reorganization of theis page, more toward being chronologically correct, more to come. Ishmaelblues ( talk) 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
he late 18th and early 19th century was an era of conflict. The war between Great Britain and France raged between 1793 and 1815 with few interruptions. As a part of the British Empire, Upper Canada was unable to escape this broader conflict and when, on June 18, 1812, the United States declared war on Britain, Canada was brought to the front line of what had become a world war.
Just like armed conflict in any part of the world, the War of 1812 had a significant effect on the local population. This exhibit focuses on the impact of the War on those living in Upper Canada at the time of the conflict and on later generations who sought ways to remember it. It documents how the war was fought both within the province and in locations beyond its borders, and it examines the War's later image in the popular imagination.
The exhibit also provides an opportunity for the Archives of Ontario to shed light on invaluable documents from its rich collections, many of which have never been published and are made widely available to the public for the first time.
Setting the Stage
Battlegrounds
Detroit Frontier
Niagara Frontier and York
Kingston and the St. Lawrence
The War Beyond Upper Canada
Militia and Civilian Life
Prisoners of War
Loyalty and Treason
The War Ends
After the War
Chronology of the War
Soldiering in Canada
(1812-1814)
Important Figures
Important Places
Glossary of Terms
Sources
Links
The Making of a Virtual
Exhibit
Correspondence and diaries contemporary to the war tell the story in the words of those who lived through it. A broad variety of documentary art, illustrations drawn from the work of artists and later photographers has been selected to help bring these contemporary words to life, and sound bites recreate a flavour of the times.
THIS INFO IS JUST A ICE WAY TO ADVERISE THE WEBSITE BELOW.
ALL OF THIS INFO CAN BE VIEWED AT THE WEBSITE -
http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/ENGLISH/exhibits/1812/index.html
For any question please make sure you get in touch with us. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
G. minhas (
talk •
contribs)
23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no nation of Canada except terrorities under control of the British Empire, this should be corrected. Otherwise, it's like saying "Israel was part of the Ottoman empire in 1912" when no Israeli state existed then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.247.142 ( talk) 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
True, but Upper and Lower Canada did elect assemblies and the Canadians did not want to be "liberated" by the US-- Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In the Book Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville, page 140, he states: "In the War of 1812, the president ordered the militia of the northern states to march to the frontiers; but CT and MA, whose interests were impaired by the war, refused to obey the command. They argued that the constitution authorizes the federal government to call forth the militia in cases of insurrection or invasion, but that in the present instance, there was neither invasion nor insurrection. They added, that the same constitution which conferred upon the Union the right of calling forth the militia, reserved to the states that of naming the officers; and that consequently (as they understood the clause) no officer of the Union had any right to command the militia, even during war, except the president in person: and in this case they were ordered to join an army commanded by another individual. These absurd and pernicious doctrines received the sanction not only of the governors and legislative bodies, but also of the courts of justice in both states and the federal government was constrained to raise elsewhere the troops which is required."
See also Kent's Commentaries, Vol i, Pg 244 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idrivex ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I urge editors of this article to read The Straight Dope about the War of 1812 (which I've added to it as an external link, besides giving the link here). It addresses some issues of bias in the article, particularly about the war's winners and losers, and gives some excellent references. The neutrality of the WP article would be improved by taking a lead from what this impartial (and American) source says. -- Lonewolf BC ( talk) 08:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Straight Dope is not a reliable source for the War of 1812, in that it is not a peer-reviewed historical source. Not to say that it isn't interesting, or that we cannot use it. Just that we cannot use it to determine who "won" the war. It is interesting reading and may be illuminating for many who were taught the myth. Sunray ( talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Question: "Meanwhile, following the abdication of Napoleon, 15,000 British troops were sent to North America under four of Wellington’s most able brigade commanders."
Who were the 4 brigade commanders to come from the Peninsular? Just curious, really. Carre ( talk) 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we substitute some "US" and "American" to break up all of the instances of "United States" that have replaced every instance of "American" in the article? It's a much less comfortable read now. Zebulin ( talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What do the symbols next to Tecumseh and Issac Brock mean? And what significance did Brock have in the war? Das.avatar ( talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way information about Ft. Amanda could be added to the Northwest US section?
"Fort Amanda was one of a series of forts extending north from Piqua to Ft. Meigs (present day Perrysburg), built by order of General William Henry Harrison. These forts helped supply the army protecting the Northwest from British invasion during the war of 1812. Ft. Amanda's construction began in the fall of 1812 under the directorn of Lt. Col. Robert Poague who named in Amanda in honor of his daughter. The original fort is believed to have measured 160 feet by 160 feet. Located at the head of navigation of the Auglaize River, it had a small landing with a boat yard and served as a supply post and hosptial. Soldiers built riverboats or pirogues to transport soldiers and supplies. Approximately 75 peiorgues were built during the winter of 1812-1813.
Although Ft. Amanda saw no fighting during the war, it served as an important link in this supply line. On Decwember 24, 1814, the United States and Britian signed the treaty of Ghent, which ended the war. By early 1815 the fort was abandoned and eventually taken over by local settlers. In the cemetery near the fort are 75 headstones dedicated to the memory of unknown American soldiers of the war of 1812. Some speculate these mark the graves of soldiers who were casualties of wounds or disease. The original fort is no longer standing but a granite monument was built in 1915 at the site of the original fort. The monument as well as the cemetery can be view during daylight hours."
I visited the area and would be more than happy to contribute an image of what the fort looked like, or the obliske there now.
Stepshep ( talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.13.95 ( talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to divert who won the war discussion to a discussion sub page? Perhaps that would reduce the frequency of the same arguments being rehashed over and over. Zebulin ( talk) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should apply for a permanent semi-protect given the amount of vandalism this page gets. -- Tirronan ( talk) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cutting to the actual push for war:
It seems the article currently places much of the blame for the war on the British side, while some respected scholars see that the U.S. did indeed have designs on Canada and some interested individuals used the power to select the Jeffersonian party candidate for President to pressure Madison into an ill-advised war.
Quote from the Wall Street Journal, 3/24/2007: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631654451858227.html?mod=hps_europe_at_glance_most_pop
"But the historical record on this is not heartening. During the reign of the Jeffersonians, the progenitors of today's Democrats, the congressional caucus chose the party's nominee. It was a system that yielded mediocrity, even danger. Congressional hawks pushed James Madison into the War of 1812 by demanding ever more aggressive trade restrictions against Great Britain and ultimately declaring war -- all because they wanted to absorb Canada. It ended with a stalemate in the north, the torching of the U.S. capital, and Gen. Andrew Jackson winning a victory at the Battle of New Orleans." - John Yoo, law professor at University of California, Berkeley; visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Mr. Yoo can be quoted independently. The quotation above is of his own text by his own hand.
Notably this electoral system eventually led to the infamous "corrupt bargain" and should be examined as a contributing factor to U.S. demand for war in the 1812 item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.77.5 ( talk) 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence in the overview is: The war started badly for the Americans as an attempt to invade Canada in August 1812 was repulsed by Major-General Isaac Brock, commanding a small force composed of some 350 regular British troops supported by local militias and American Indian allies, and led to the British capture of Detroit.
The term "American Indian allies" should be changed to "Native American allies" to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.225.253 ( talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In several places this article refers to "Indians." These should all be changed to Native Americans, American Indians or Amerindians, whichever is the normal naming convention. Indian is outright wrong since it refers to a person from India and we can be certain that the Indians were not in the Americas. -- 76.69.63.93 ( talk) 20:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do articles in which the American troops won or drew with the British say something on the lines of "this battle proved that American troops could hold their own against British troops if properly trained and well led"? ANYONE can hold their own against anyone else if properly trained and well led, I do believe that this statement should not hold a special reservation just for wars between Britain and the United States. ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
In the article they forgot the best part of the war: the Canadians burning most of Washington that is why the treaty was signed: they missed their parlament, lucky for them the Presidents house (White House before it was white) was still in ok shape, but burned badly so they repaired it but it was still all ashy so it was white-washed so yes Canadians rock hard :) ( 99.250.89.162 ( talk) 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
im doing a report on the war of 1812 and my history textbook says that only 16 americans ships were in the war not 18. which one is correct?
Why is the first picture of the article one of a United States loss, and not a victory, such as the Battle of New Orleans or the USS Constitution defeating the HMS Guerierre? Redsox00002 ( talk) 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No one won. Now shut up with the immature comments Redsox00002, Learn your HISTORY before you make a comment. ( Butters x ( talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
i think this is an awsome site and i am working on the war so it is an awsome site 4 kids and adults! i have 2 kittens in my hands so i can't talk...bye!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.252.253 ( talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Err...Ok... ( Butters x ( talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
That is seriously one of the funniest comments I've seen on a talk page here. Momo Hemo ( talk) 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
EasyPeasy21 deleted a section that had an OR bit in it (Not cited anymore) but was cited in general. What is the view on its deletion? Should we restore what isn't OR. Narson ( talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like just another attempt to turn this into the American/Canadian war again to me. Reading the history seems that more than a few in Congress thought that the Canadian colonist really didn't want to be part of the crown either which didn't turn out to be the case. However trying very hard to make the invasion of Canada one of the primary causes isn't the historic fact nor the one supported by the vast majority of historians. Tirronan ( talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the section for a couple of reasons:
Firstly, the section states that the view that US expansionism was a cause of the war is rarely held by historians today. I have no problem with that view, if it supported by evidence. However, the section only cites three historians from 67-83 years ago. That is not sufficient evidence for that viewpoint.
Secondly, only the names of the historians are cited, and the dates they presented their viewpoints. Names of books, publishers, and page references are needed for the citation to be allowable, imho.
I am sorry that these reasons were not stated in the edit summary of my edit. I had edited the article beforehand, and placed those reasons in the edit summary, but I accidentally edited twice the same thing, so the edit with the reasons in the edit summary was removed from the history.
Tirronan and I are working on creating a better section. EasyPeasy21 ( talk) 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to state that it is incorrect to list Newfoundland as part of the 'Canadian Provinces' when listing or discussing the belligerent parties involved in the war. Newfoundland was a colony of Great Britain until 1907, upon which it became a British Dominion and separate country. It is therefore incorrect to list Newfoundland as one of the Canadian Provinces, as it did not become as such until 1949. This should therefore be corrected, or clarification should be made as to what 'Canadian Provinces' means (i.e. what are now present day Canadian Provinces of etc.)-- Mrcooker ( talk) 10:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
there is going to be some reorganization of theis page, more toward being chronologically correct, more to come. Ishmaelblues ( talk) 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
he late 18th and early 19th century was an era of conflict. The war between Great Britain and France raged between 1793 and 1815 with few interruptions. As a part of the British Empire, Upper Canada was unable to escape this broader conflict and when, on June 18, 1812, the United States declared war on Britain, Canada was brought to the front line of what had become a world war.
Just like armed conflict in any part of the world, the War of 1812 had a significant effect on the local population. This exhibit focuses on the impact of the War on those living in Upper Canada at the time of the conflict and on later generations who sought ways to remember it. It documents how the war was fought both within the province and in locations beyond its borders, and it examines the War's later image in the popular imagination.
The exhibit also provides an opportunity for the Archives of Ontario to shed light on invaluable documents from its rich collections, many of which have never been published and are made widely available to the public for the first time.
Setting the Stage
Battlegrounds
Detroit Frontier
Niagara Frontier and York
Kingston and the St. Lawrence
The War Beyond Upper Canada
Militia and Civilian Life
Prisoners of War
Loyalty and Treason
The War Ends
After the War
Chronology of the War
Soldiering in Canada
(1812-1814)
Important Figures
Important Places
Glossary of Terms
Sources
Links
The Making of a Virtual
Exhibit
Correspondence and diaries contemporary to the war tell the story in the words of those who lived through it. A broad variety of documentary art, illustrations drawn from the work of artists and later photographers has been selected to help bring these contemporary words to life, and sound bites recreate a flavour of the times.
THIS INFO IS JUST A ICE WAY TO ADVERISE THE WEBSITE BELOW.
ALL OF THIS INFO CAN BE VIEWED AT THE WEBSITE -
http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/ENGLISH/exhibits/1812/index.html
For any question please make sure you get in touch with us. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
G. minhas (
talk •
contribs)
23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no nation of Canada except terrorities under control of the British Empire, this should be corrected. Otherwise, it's like saying "Israel was part of the Ottoman empire in 1912" when no Israeli state existed then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.247.142 ( talk) 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
True, but Upper and Lower Canada did elect assemblies and the Canadians did not want to be "liberated" by the US-- Ret.Prof ( talk) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In the Book Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville, page 140, he states: "In the War of 1812, the president ordered the militia of the northern states to march to the frontiers; but CT and MA, whose interests were impaired by the war, refused to obey the command. They argued that the constitution authorizes the federal government to call forth the militia in cases of insurrection or invasion, but that in the present instance, there was neither invasion nor insurrection. They added, that the same constitution which conferred upon the Union the right of calling forth the militia, reserved to the states that of naming the officers; and that consequently (as they understood the clause) no officer of the Union had any right to command the militia, even during war, except the president in person: and in this case they were ordered to join an army commanded by another individual. These absurd and pernicious doctrines received the sanction not only of the governors and legislative bodies, but also of the courts of justice in both states and the federal government was constrained to raise elsewhere the troops which is required."
See also Kent's Commentaries, Vol i, Pg 244 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idrivex ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)