Talk:Origins of the War of 1812

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Origins of the War of 1812

Perhaps the most biased article on the War of 1812 I've ever read - another reason Wikipedia fails as an educational source - I know it's difficult for Americans to fathom that they were infact wrong and did infact take one serious military belting upon their failed imperialist attempts to annex Canada but comon... covering history up? I would advise some of you to read John Latimer's '1812: War with America'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.42.95 (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article has a vast US bias. The main reason for the war (and this is not "mythology") is that England was busy with Napoleon and this gave the US an opportunity to pursue its policy of "manifest destiny". After starting the war under the pretext of impressement, they US failed to annex Canada. Once England's troops were available after Napoleon's defeat, the war was no longer viable and the US sued to end it. The US says they won simply because impressement ended - which is silly given that England no longer needed the sailors due to Napoleon's defeat. The US decalared war - it failed to attain its military objectives, it sued for peace, and then they say they won because empressment ended - that is a joke. Today we call this 'spin'.

If you read the documents of the period it is clear that manifest destiny and England's temporary weakness were the reasons for the failed war. Do you honestly think that the concept of 'spin' is new to our century?

David R

The article is based on the best Canadian and American scholarship. It avoids the myths that are taught to Canadian kids in 7th grade. Rjensen 03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone know anything about an embargo against Britain put into place in April of 1812?

Treaty obligations

Anyone know the importance of American failure to compensate Loyalists for seized territory and any other failed treaty obligations of the Treaty of Paris? Jztinfinity 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) what are the three most influential causes of the war of 1812?[reply]

Suggested Merge

I didn't add the merge tags but it sounds like a very good idea to me. Impressment of American Seamen is not really relevant to any other episode of history. Anyone else have a view? The Land 19:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen 20:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)bad idea to merge. impressment came many years before starte of 1812 it was issue in Jay Treaty talks in 1794 for example and involves other issues. the issue in 1812 was not exactly impressment but definition of who was a British subject USA said former Brits were no longer subject to impressment but AGREED Brits could impress their own subjects[reply]

Merging

I think that they could be merged.

I think british alliance with native americans should be merged and War Hawks. Ricky

All in Favor Say Aye

AYE! They should definitely be merged. Didn't the impressment of the sailors make Americans angrier at Britain? I would say it was one of the origins of the war. Does anyone disagree?
--Regoldberg 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Eli Goldberg[reply]

Impressment was indeed one of the causes of the 1812 war. But it was an important Britissh naval policy for many years previous and should not be hidden away in a discussion of one war out of many in which it was used. Rjensen 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--FyeRoo 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Alex Fox[reply]
These topics should be merged. I believe impressment of the sailiors was one the major causes of the War of 1812.
I concur. Merge --CPAScott 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are missing the point. Impressment was a long-standing policy that affected lots of people besides the Americans in 1812. Merging is simply misleading and helps no one Rjensen 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote against merge. Impressment is an important issue in British naval history, regardless of the War of 1812. And since the article is not just about the War of 1812 it helps it retain a neutral POV. BradMajors 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a real problem with the comment about the part that discusses the Canadian 'mythology' about the war. While a different point of view, the cause of the War of 1812 as viewed in Canada is the fear of American expansionism and Manifest Destiny. This is NOT a view that has been discarded to history and was a valid fear given the stance of the War Hawk senators. The rallying cry of '54'40 or fight,' although this happened after the fact, it shows that American expansionism was not unfounded. The term 'myth' is what I have the biggest problem with - this is not a view confined to mythology. Thanks, Alex.

The pro-Empire Canadians invented the myths after the war to ween canadians away from American ideas like democracy. The myths about America wanting to annex Canada in 1812 were false as historians for 50+ years have agreed. As for 54-40-or-fight, that episode in 1840s resulted in a peaceful compromise in which the Empire got British Columbia and USA got Washington-Oregon area. This fear of American expansionism is an intereting myth--you see it in people like Will Ferguson. Maybe it's an essential myth to hold Canada together. It played that role in 1911 election, for example. Rjensen 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no. Frankly, the "myths" about Americans wanting to annex Canada were (and are) not false, but they are misinterpreted. Americans did not want to expand into what is now Eastern Canada (NS, NB, Upper and Lower Canada), but they did want to expand into the Ohio valley (at least), and potentially into what is now Western Canada. If I am not mistaken, the Ohio region, and the Mississippi valley were part of "Canada", and under British dominion following the Treaty of Paris and the Quebec Act. They effectively blocked westward U.S. expansion. Arming the natives therein is, again, largely a bit of American mythos. How could arming natives for self-defense within their own (British-controlled) territory be viewed as agressive towards the U.S.? Thus, New England and New York, although greatly affected by impressment, were not in favour of the war, but what were then "Western" and Southern states did. Thoughts welcome. (Oh, and I concur with Rjensen that the articles should not be merged; impressment was one cause of the War of 1812 (perhaps, and at least was so-stated by one side), but it did have other consequences and merits its own article). Esseh 02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Treaty of Paris 1783 gave the Ohio Valley to the US, and after the Jay Treaty of 1795 the British finally removed some of their forts. The British were arming Indians in Ohio-Indiana-Illinois-Michigan-Wisconsin region, which was part of USA. Rjensen 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the issue of merging Impressment of American Seamen into this article: I vote -no- emphatically on the merge. The issue of impressment does not deserve to be mashed together with a rather nebulous article on all topics concerning the origins of the War of 1812. It is an issue in itself which deserves its own article space. Of course, it must be covered in the Origins article, but the section on the violations of American rights should contain an italicized sentence beneath the header containing a redirict link to Impressment of American Seamen in conjunction with a brief overview of American impressment. Auror 13:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon

"Napoleon had no intention of honoring promise: Hickey, p. 22; Horsman, p. 188."

Fine, it's sourced, but it could be desirable to add some more explanations as to how Hickey and Horsman were able to guess what Napoleon's intentions were. --Anonymous44 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Belt Affair

The article currently contains no mention whatsoever of the Little Belt Affair. As it was significant in the ramp-up to hostilities, I will be adding a small section on it to the Origins article soon. However, there is no inclusion of it in the Origins of the War of 1812 Link Box in the top right corner of the article; it is the same box which gets plastered on many of the lead-up-to-the-War of 1812 articles. Should the Little Belt Affair be added to these boxes? I vote aye. Auror 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Point of View

I agree with David R that this article presents an American point of view. Although the writer mentions using Canadian scholars, the one mentioned (Alfred L Burt) was a professor at the University of Minnesota. Also, there is a reference to Julius W Pratt's article, "Expansionists of 1812" but not what it says: "The belief that the United States would one day annex Canada had a continuous existence from the early days of the War of Independence to the War of 1812 [and] was a factor of primary importance in bringing on the war."

Also, there is no mention of the pretext that the British were arming Indians against the Americans (which of course was false).

It should also be noted that there has been very little academic research into the causes of the War of 1812, and all the sources quoted are over 40 years old. Since then there have been changes in attitudes toward American expansionism and the treatment of aboriginal peoples, who were the main victims of the War of 1812 and also Canada's primary defenders. --The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can supply a reference to a reliable source which states the British did supply arms to the Indians during the Northwest Indian War. I don't know about Tecumseh's War. BradMajors (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay's Treaty was agreed in 1794 and the Northwest Indian War ended in 1795. Tecumseh's War was in 1811 but he did not receive any assistance from the British until after the War of 1812 began. The British did not arm the Indians after signing the treaty. --The Four Deuces (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so maybe Canada is putting historical propaganda into our textbooks by saying that USA fought the war in part due to a desire to annex Canada. I think it's equally plausible that American propaganda got into your textbooks based on claims of the government having completely innocent intentions. Unstated agendas exist, and I'm sure there were plenty of interested parties that desired Canada's rich resources and if researched enough, there's probably some who even said it outright. I think that the two points of view should receive an equal amount of consideration in the article, just to keep this article's neutrality. Universal spirit (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might i suggest Pierre Berton who wrote a book called The Invasion of Canada Lingust (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egan quotation

"Almost all accounts of the 1811-1812 period have stressed the influence of a youthful band, denominated War Hawks, on Madison's policy. According to the standard picture, these men were a rather wild and exuberant group enraged by Britain's maritime practices, certain that the British were encouraging the Indians and convinced that Canada would be an easy conquest and a choice addition to the national domain. Like all stereotypes, there is some truth in this tableau; however, inaccuracies predominate. First, Perkins has shown that those favoring war were older than those opposed. Second, the lure of the Canadas has been played down by most recent investigators, a trend with which Pratt concurs" (Egan, 1974:74).

Egan, Clifford L. (1974). The Origins of the War of 1812: Three Decades of Historical Writing. Military Affairs, Vol. 38, No. 2 (April), pp. 72-75.

Stacyted (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical claims about causes and intent

It seems to me that establishing the "real cause" of complex events that develop and change over periods of years (like wars) is extremely difficult, but perhaps not quite as difficult as climbing into the heads of military and government leaders who are long dead and who participated in these events roughly 2 centuries ago, to determine their "intent". It is difficult enough to make a case in a courtroom based on intent when the event in question was a shooting that occurred 2 weeks ago and when all of the participants are alive, present, and able (even legally required) to testify. Into this lacuna about "real causes" and "intent" seem to creep all manner of conspiracy theories.

Stacyted (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion issue: British intent was control of Mississippi Valley

Some people have mentioned Latimer (2007), a British perspective. Latimer shows (p 370) that even before the war began the British had plans to control the Mississippi Valley. And indeed that became a major British war goal--british expansion, mind you--as shown at Ghent when the British demanded a "neutral" (ie pro-british) Indian nation covering much of the American Midwest, AND at the same time sent a powerful force to capture New Orleans, which would guarantee control of the Mississippi Valley. The Canadians who are forever shouting "manifest destiny" forget that London made the imperial strategy. Of course the British expansion failed because their invading armies in New York and Louisiana failed in 1814-15.

goals

I added a section summarizing US goals, added Indians to British goals, and tweaked the bit about settlement of western Ontario, all with new citations. Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leander Affair

There is no inclusion of it in the Origins of the War of 1812 Link Box in the top right corner of the article; it is the same box that gets plastered on many of the lead-up-to-the-War of 1812 articles. The Leander Affair should be added to these boxes. It preceded the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair by a year and led to President Jefferson banning certain British warships and any warships subsequently commanded by their captains, from US waters.Acad Ronin (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disturbed by the US Biased justification of the war, expansionism was not the main cause but must be mentioned. This is no Myth as the author seems to feel. Ref: In 1811, Adams wrote to his father: 

The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.

Obviously Manifest Destiny by another name. Lets be honest and not history revisionists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordrig (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion issue

I dropped new text by Rwenonah that incorrectly states the views of two historians. Nugent (Habits of Empire p 74) says that British aid to Indians in the US was a cause of the war. He says that AFTER the war started the US forces tried to invade Canada. Carlisle and Colson Manifest Destiny and the Expansion of America have a sentence about Americans wanting land --many thousands did move to Canada after 1790--but they do not say it caused the war. Instead they say the Americans went to war to uphold their honor. (p 43) The call the war an American Victory, by the way. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this. You write: "Nugent (Habits of Empire p 74) says that British aid to Indians in the US was a cause of the war(I don't disagree. I also don't see how this has anything to do with American expansionism. He doesn't say that that was the only cause.) He says that AFTER the war started the US forces tried to invade Canada.(Right. Very true. What on earth does that fact have to do with American expansionism? I don't say that America invaded before the war) Clearly,I have not stated his views incorrectly,as nothing you wrote contradicts me,involves American expansionism,or applies to this dispute at all. In fact,he says on the same page "Expansion was not the only American objective,and indeed not the immediate one. But it was an objective" in reference to the war of 1812. Right there on page 73. His view on American expansionism:that it was an objective. The Manifest Destiny book says on the same page you refer to earlier that "Americans harboured manifest destiny ideas of Canadian annexation throughout the nineteenth century"(including 1812) And as you said earlier "sources don't have to be neutral, only reliable." So please stop reverting me-I have not misrepresented anything. As 3 historians clearly disagree with your POV, the page should show there is dispute as to whether American expansionism was a cause of the war. Your bias toward Canada notwithstanding. Rwenonah (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely misrepresented Carlisle and Colson and seriously misrepresented Nugent. he says the Canada business was to stop the Indian attacks on American expansion. p 78. as for permanent acquisition of Canada he always hedges and says only it was a possibility. "A second reason for occupying and possibly annexing Canada was economic." (p 78) The main reasons for war he says were in opening trade, ending impressment and ending insults to national honor. (p 79) Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nugent agrees that the US was seriously considering annexing Canada,which is all I've ever said. Carlisle and Golson say that the US had ideas of annexing Canada througout the nineteenth century,of which 1812 is a part. I also have another source(Julius L Pratt,who also agrees with Nugent).Rwenonah (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No the statement you wrote is "However,historians are not in agreement as to whether this was the cause of the war or not, and there is still dispute as to whether this brought on the the war or not." That is not supported by Carlisle and Golson who do NOT list expansion as a cause of the war. Nugent says, "Would the United States have declared war on Britain solely to stop her intrigues with the Northwest Indians? Or solely to invade, capture, and annex Canada? Almost certainly not. The national interest lay chiefly in opening trade, stopping impressment, and ending insults to the nation's honor." p 79

I don't say that the war started solely due to the American desire to annex Canada. Neither does Nugent-he does say, however,that expansion was an objective,which fully supports me. Carlisle and Golson say that Americans harboured ideas of Canadian annexation throughout the nineteenth century. Which,once again, supports me,if less fully. Your refusal to accept this idea should stay off of WikipediaRwenonah (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle and Colson have a list of the causes of the war. they do NOT include " ideas of Canadian annexation" (they mention that in another context on another page and do not link it to 1812). That's because they do not believe annexation was a cause of the war. Nor does Nugent. Only Rwenonah says that and it's not based on any RS he has seen. Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nugent says:"expansion was not the only objective,and indeed not the immediate one. But it was an objective." I will remove Carlisle and Golson as the rest of the text does not support me. Rwenonah (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

buffer state

By 1813, the Americans controlled all of Ohio, all of Indiana, most of Illinois, and the Detroit region of Michigan. The British and their Indian allies controlled the rest of Michigan and all of Wisconsin. (by the way RS do not call the Indian forces "troops".) With the Americans in control of Lake Erie and Southwestern Ontario, the British were largely cut off from their units in Michigan and Wisconsin. Reinforcing them, and even bringing in supplies of guns and gunpowder would be difficult, as a glance at the map shows. Wellington in 1814 made this point in his refusal to take command of the British efforts in Canada. It's important to mention that at all times be American negotiators at Ghent refused to negotiate any buffer state whatsoever. That's because the peace treaty of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794 gave the Americans full control over Michigan, Wisconsin, and points south. Citation: Michigan:Michigan: A History of the Great Lakes State. Wiley. 2014. pp. 61–62.. All the Indian forces left Indiana in 1813 to follow Tecumseh says: Spencer Tucker; et al. (2012). The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812: A Political, Social, and Military History. ABC-CLIO. p. 365. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help). they left Ohio too: James C. Bradford (2003). Atlas of American Military History. Oxford UP. p. 44. The Brit-Indian forces held Wisconsin in 1814: Tucker (2012). The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812: A Political, Social, and Military History. p. 587. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, although it's important to note that British and British-allied Indian forces also held a large part of Illinois as well as the whole Upper Missisippi Valley, including what is today Iowa.The British controlled Lake Huron throughout the war after the Engagements on Lake Huron and could resupply (as indeed they repeatedly did) through the Nottawasaga River, which linked York to Lake Huron. Supplies brought through this route kept the garrisons in Mackinac and in Prairie du Chien supplied through the war, and reinforcements repeatedly were transported this way. Although this was a roundabout and inconvenient supply line which was much more difficult than the "easy southern routes" held by the Americans, it worked throughout the war (Fighting Sail on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay:The War of 1812, Barry M. Gough). As Pierre Berton notes in War of 1812 (pg. 696-697), the Americans attempted and failed to cut this route, recognizing its importance to the British position in the Old Northwest. It's interesting to note that he also mentions that sufficient quantities of powder to blow up a schooner, as well as a shipload of "shoes, leather, candles, flower, pork", so clearly large quantities could be and were moved by this route. The Americans refused to accept a buffer state at Ghent, but negotiations are a two-way street, and the British also had to drop the demand, as part of their larger abdomen tot their Indian allies. It's also interesting to note Ghent stipulated the Indians were to regain all territory lost as a result of the war. Rwenonah (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. But the main British reason by 1814 for a buffer state was the fur trade, and it was far smaller than the overall trade with US. So they gave it up. As for the Indians, they were not a high British priority. Keeping US territory after 1815 was a formula for never-ending warfare with USA that eventually would take all of Canada. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Origins of the War of 1812. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language: Canadian and American scholarship dominates the RS on this topic

RS have repeatedly pointed out that the British largely ignore the war and the vast bulk of the RS are based in Canada and the U.S.A. That indicates that Canadian and American English have priority. In cases such as "honour" and "honor" which are standard in both Canadian and American English (according to "Gage Canadian Dictionary (1983) page x) we can ignore the British variant spelling . The Wiji guideline is that the first edit of an article sets the spelling convention, and in it "honor" is used and "honorable." see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origins_of_the_War_of_1812&oldid=25453079 Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No spelling variant has been chosen for this article. Since there is a reason to use U.S. spelling I would agree with that - we need to add a template. "Our" endings are preferred in Canada, particularly in Ontario, although in 1812, American English spellings were the norm. (See "Canadian English: A Linguistic Reader." TFD (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Origins_of_the_War_of_1812"