Talk:War of 1812

This page is for discussions about changes to the article There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to Archives 8 and 9 for the most recent discussions). Historians and the editors have various viewpoints on which side won, or if there was a stalemate. For more information, see the section *Memory and historiography, Historian's views*. However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war."

Please do not use this page to continue the argument that one or the other side "won" unless you are able to present citations from reliable and verifiable sources to support your claims.

If you wish to make a case for who won the war, but do not yet have citations, feel free to do so here: Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?

Reference to Slave Trade could be explained better

Freeing and Recruiting slaves

change

The blockading British fleet in Chesapeake Bay, based at Bermuda, received increasing numbers of enslaved black Americans during 1813. They were welcomed by Royal Navy officers holding anti-slavery sentiments and, by British government order, were treated as free persons when reaching British hands.

The 1807 Slave Trade Act was one of the motivations of this, along with hurting the US economy, so I propose we replace the current text with this:

The blockading British fleet in Chesapeake Bay, based at Bermuda, received increasing numbers of enslaved black Americans during 1813. In light of the 1807 Slave Trade Act, Slaves were welcomed aboard by Royal Navy officers and, were treated as free persons when reaching British hands.

No. The US and Britain both criminalized the International slave trade in 1807, but neither one abolished slavery. Slavery existed in Canada & West Indies until the 1830s. Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the 1807 banned the international slave trade, not slavery. But in the war, didn't the British free American slaves who fought for them, as they had in the Revolution? I think so, in which case this section is roughly right (they were treated as free persons) and precisely wrong (it is attributed to the wrong reasons - the banning of slave trade.) It was part of British policy to encourage slaves to leave their masters and cripple the American economy. Will try to find a cite.

Suggest: "The blockading British fleet in Chesapeake Bay, based at Bermuda, received increasing numbers of enslaved black Americans during 1813 who had fled their masters. As they had during the American Revolution, the British offered freedom to slaves who fought for them."Parkwells (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Slavery was effectively abolished in Britain by the judgement of Lord Mansfield in 1772. This abolition extended to Royal Navy ships (as equivalent to British soil) so that slaves who made their way on board a navy ship were considered to be free. In Upper Canada, the act of 1793 declared that no slaves could be imported and all children of slaves were free, but existing slaves in the colony remained in bondage. I am unclear of the status of slaves who escaped there during the war. Dabbler (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The 1793 act provided that anyone who entered the province would be free.[1] In Nova Scotia, slave owners had to prove ownership, which the courts routinely rejected, so in effect anyone who entered that province was also free. TFD (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The Treaty of Ghent provided for the British to return captured slaves or pay their purchase price. They paid the purchase price after the war. I believe the British recruited about 200 freed slaves into a combat unit. Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Indian Allies unclear

I point this out not as a matter of political correctness but clarity: the first sentence states the war occurred between "the United States and the British Empire and their Indian allies" to which my reaction was "the Empire shipped sepoys to North America?" This may be my own personal misunderstanding, but something like "indigenous Indian allies," "Native American allies," "Northern Amerindian allies," even "aboriginal Indian allies" would more accurately express with whom the British alliance was.

you learn something new everyday--especially if you read the entire first paragraph which covers the matter. A "sepoy" by the way was not an Indian ally, it was an Indian enrolled in the British army. Rjensen (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As a British reader I thought exactly the same thing. By 1812 the British were already using units of Indian troops in the British Indian Army, though not outside the sub-continent. In this particular case I think the first paragraph should make it clear that the British allies in 1812 were Native Americans, if that can be done in a suitably readable way. Perhaps just substituting 'Native American Indian allies' would do.Blakk and ekka 09:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't think I wrote this particular sentence, the question is just tricky, apart from trying to avoid either anachronistic political correctness or historically-contemporary usage that would confuse or confound non-expert modern readers (e.g. "factory" for a trading post). In addition to their P.C. sound, "Native Americans" seems inappropriate to Canadians for describing tribes then living in Canada; while the current (post-1970) Canadian term "First Nations" means nothing to most Americans. Plain old "natives" was once just descriptive, but its disdainful use over the years by imperialists, racists and colonialists, reflected in stereotyped film and literature, understandably makes it offensive to many. There is some relatively happy wording, but it may take time to work out. If interested, you could peruse this Talk Page's archives for earlier discussions on this topic. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, it does seem something of a can of worms. I think perhaps that it's the word 'Empire' that provokes the incorrect first impression in British readers. Perhaps something like "allied British and Indian forces" could be substituted (although I realise that it's important to emphasise the role of Canadian forces)? Also the sentence "...a 32-month military conflict between the United States and the British Empire and their Indian allies" might be considered ambiguous in that it implies that both sides had Indian allies. Would "the British Empire and its Indian allies" be more accurate?Blakk and ekka 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. had some Indian allies too. While the "empire" is a singular noun, I believe the possessive is "her." TFD (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The British Empire is mostly an it, not female. Check out Winston Churchill's comment about "... its finest hour." Dabbler (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Except he actually said, "if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years men will still say, "This was their finest hour."[2] The speech that was broadcast was recorded by an actor. Regardless, one person's speech is not authoritative. He referred to himself as prime minister of England for example. TFD (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to "Indians" is initially confusing. Especially in such close proximity to mention of the British Empire. I think that most Britons would instinctively think of India at this point. (Certainly this one did!) Since the terms "native Americans" and "first Nations" are unsuitable, might some adjective perhaps be inserted to refer to their location? e.g. "the British Empire and their allies from the local Indian population"? "the British Empire and those* local Indians who supported them"? (* or "the".) And so on..... MrsJJHH (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In British primary sources I have looked at, the British use the term "Indian" for the local indigenous population...so it would seem the most suitable term. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Varieties of English

All due respect.. why does Canadian English prevail in an article that over 300 million Americans turn to for their reports and submit them to their schools every day. In the section of Memory and historiography.. There is a section American that states:

Today, American popular memory includes the British capture and the burning of Washington in August 1814[citation needed], which necessitated its extensive renovation. Another memory is the successful American defence of Fort McHenry in September 1814, which inspired the lyrics of the U.S. national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner"

The word "defence" should be "defense". This is American History. Why does Canadian English prevail over the most powerful country in the world, in a war that was fought primarily (95%) in the USA and our children turn to this article everyday for school reports? Change this in at least the American section to American English. Thank you.Mattscards (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question, to which you will find a general answer in Wikipedia:ENGVAR, which says that where a subject has no clear tie to one particular English-speaking nation, the style of the first major editor(s) should be followed by subsequent ones. (Of course this never applies to direct quotations, which should almost always use the exact spelling of the original.) Apparently, the first major editor's style was Canadian English. This article has both very learnèd, dedicated editors, and more-casual ones like me, from the U.S., Canada and the British Isles, in all of which at least some important actions, decisions or debates of this war took place. So the intent of the first-major-editor rule, to keep stability and reduce conflict, has been well served by trying best to follow it. As far as I can gather, the War of 1812 represents (or at least used to represent) a far greater place in popular Canadian historical memory than it does in U.S., let alone British. (It was considered the catalyst for a sense of Canadian identity, in a similar but much greater fashion as the French & Indian Wars brought the Thirteen Colonies closer together.) However, a stand-alone article about American memories of Fort McHenry would best be written in American English. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the war is of greater interest to Canadians. TFD (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

According to (Canadian writer) Farley Mowat, Canada won. History is written by the victors. Other than one or two spelling pecadilloes could y'all tell me what is the difference between Canadian English and US English? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the language is called English, the spelling used by the English and the Commonwealth should predominate, not the incorrect mangled version propagated by the United States. Particularly since the British won the war.Gymnophoria (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Since us Brits and the Canadians both spell defence with a C and the Americans with an S I think that's 2 to 1... We win! By the way, why aren't we Brits taught about this in school? Still,let's not hold grudges. We're all friends now! - (LRR)

I think that all articles that "Americans turn to for their reports and submit them to their schools every day" should do done in British or Canadian English. This makes it more obvious to teachers when students plagiarize by copying text verbatim.71.109.148.53 (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR. As this subject applies to the US and Canada/UK, we go to the "which was it first written in." Looking at the original revision of this page (taken from a British encyclopedia whose copyright had expired), I see the word "favour"; thus Commonwealth spelling is appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The war was the last war fought on Canadian soil.

Regarding the different attitudes between American, Canadian, and British view of the war, here's an article from tvtropes that should help clarify:

1814, an American Rock opera about the War Of 1812 recently toured Canada, only to find the audience cheering the Red Coat character's songs, and booing American characters, despite the fact that the Americans are written as the opera's heroes, and the Red Coats are the villains. This is because in the War Of 1812, Canadians fought on the British side against the Americans, and during the same war, York (modern Toronto, and the de facto capital city of Canada, or at least the half that spoke English, at the time) was burned to the ground by the Americans, and the original parliament buildings with it, resulting in the Canadians and British burning Washington DC in revenge. There's also the fact that even today, 200 years later, both the Americans and the Canadians believe they "won" the War Of 1812, despite the fact that from a modern perspective, neither nation could claim "victory" because both nations had their capital cities occupied and burned by enemy soldiers, and neither nation gained or lost any territory despite heavy losses on both sides, with the post-war borders being identical to the pre-war borders. This hasn't stopped the Americans believing their side "won" because the United States remained independent from the British Empire, and the Canadians believing their side "won" because Canada remained independent from the United States. In short both nations cast themselves heroic underdogs who won a war for their very existence against an invading aggressor with Imperial ambitions on their territory (which was to an extent true for both of them.) The war is also a vital part of both nations' national identity, with both nations taking their "victory" as a point of national pride. The Americans because it lead to the creation of the Star Spangled Banner, which would become their national anthem, and the Canadians because it was the last war fought on Canadian soil, and is the one single event that caused English Canadians to think of themselves as Canadians, rather than British, or Americans as they thought of themselves before the war. It just goes to show that just because two nations share a common language, a border, a culture, and a continent, doesn't mean that they won't have radically different points of view when it comes to historic events that effected both. Naturally this extends to any work of fiction or historical documentary taking place during the War Of 1812, as any such work that doesn't take a completely neutral view point is pretty much guaranteed to be hated either by Canadians or Americans. In another example of Americans Hate Tingle, The British, the other major player in the War Of 1812, see the war as little more than a footnote in their nation's long military history, far from regarding it as being a vital turning point of national identity as Canada or the United States does. There are two main reasons for this British apathy. Firstly, it almost certainly has to do with the fact that the war was fought entirely in North America, with hard fought and bloody battles in places that are still easily recognisable to modern Americans and Canadians, where as to the British it was just another colonial war fought "over there", with comparatively little impact on Britain itself. The other being the fact that the war was fought at around the same time as Britain's far more famous war with Napoleon Bonaparte.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.97.24 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 July 2013‎

....not sure about the whole "More Americans refer to Wikipedia so articles should be written in American English" suggestion !!!!!. In seriousness, the UK spelling on this page has been covered before. The Wikipedia rule is the first variety of English that the article was written in, which was British English. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted this debate about what type of English variation Wikipedia:ENGVAR is used on this page, I have added the Brit Eng template. Hopefully this will stop these large unnecessary discussions in the future. Peace out! Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:ARTCON I spotted a few US spelling variations, so changed them to Non US. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Raids based in Canada?

A sentence in the "course of the War" section states that "The Americans controlled western Ontario, and permanently ended the threat of Indian raids based in Canada into the American Midwest, thus achieving a basic war goal.[72][73]" It is refernced to The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 (Heidler) and a second book by a Bil Gillbert. This statement seems wrong to m, firstly because most if not all Indian raids were made from what is now the Michigan, Wisconsin and other Indiana into Ohio, Kentucky or Tennessee. I am also unsure whether controlling western Ontario would have affected this, since the U.S stil did not control the actual territory the raids came from, which still bordered the United States. I don't think the war stopped the raids, either, just British support of them. Could someone clear this up? User:Rwenonah (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

the Indians to fight the Americans needed guns, lead bullets & gunpowder from the British. American possession of western Ontario cut off their supply lines. Without British munitions the Indians were outgunned and they stopped raiding. Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't they still have the guns given to them earlier? And with the British in control of Michilimackinac, the supply lines weren't cut, especially since there was a supply line from Michilimackinac to Nottawasaga Bay. Also, if that's true, why does the article specifically say 'raids based in Canada".I tmakes it sound like control of western Ontario stopped raids based in Canada from entering the United States. This is ridiculous for many reasons, including the massive land border which raids could still have gone through, and the fact that no raids were ever based in Canada.Rwenonah (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

in those days guns broke easy and needed gunsmiths. plus powder. Michilimackinac was a LONG way away from supplies and from raiding targets. After 1814 the Brits no longer supplied Indians in Michigan. "raids based in Canada" should probably be "raids supplied through Canada". Rjensen (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good.Rwenonah (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Canadian spelling

I have restored the Canadian spelling in the article. -- Moxy (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's British spelling isn't it? From the article first using Brit spelling content from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica? (though there is only minor variation, I must admit!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Canadian spelling to me [3]. Canadian spelling is a little more flexible than either British English or American spelling but is a mixture of both. I am sure like me many others are simply tired of all the reverts back to Canadian English as most think its a mixture of British English or American spelling thus think there are errors. Thus !Vote American spelling as its simply the most common. -- Moxy (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Aye, there is Canadian spelling on here (the use of z in words like Neutralise). But the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica uses British spelling, so under WP:ENGVAR it would be a British English article, as that is what variety it started off being written in. However, I guess you could also say it's been Canadian spelling for long enough that MOS:RETAIN applies. Anyways, not really any big deal so lets leave as is. 27.253.46.128 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

the usual policy is to keep the writing style of the first editor. In this case, however, the first editor did not reveal his writing style. He merely did a cut-and-paste of the text verbatim from an old encyclopedia. For people new to this page, let me add that there is a full length scholarly article (by me) on how it got written: Wikipedia on 1812  :) Rjensen (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

without wanting to have a complex debate, I would say the main thing the rule is trying to indicate is that the article was originally written in one variety of English, and articles are kept in the variety of English they were originally written in.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is pointless for this article ...so many version since then. Just need to talk about the one we think is best for our readers. -- Moxy (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, unfortunately we can't just throw away wikipedia rules and decide what is best for our readers.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We should always do what is best for our readers (always). In this case what is best for them is a stable article, as readers could care less about our rules. Not a good idea to for go a good conversation by educated individuals simply for a guideline, whos purpose is to guide those who cant come to a logical/civil solution. What do you think is best for our readers? Its clear to me Canadian is confusing our readers...as they think is a split between British and American. -- Moxy (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The most noticeable difference between Canadian and UK spelling is "ize", but the OED preferred spelling is "ize" and they say both are correct in British English, and that consistency should be used.[4] TFD (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point - Oxford spelling indicates to use "ize", which is the actual formal, traditional usage, I think. The Times and some formal publication will use that spelling, but "ise" is used normally by most Brits/Aussies/Kiwis. Its the one bit of spelling that the Oxford agrees with US spelling on, where most Brits don't! Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As a British educated person, now living in Canada, I did not have to change my spelling when I came here. I always used the -ize spelling for a good many words in the UK and find -ise to be a bit of a fetish among some British spellers. Both were acceptable there in my younger days as evidenced by the OED. On the article itself, I see that it is considered of low importance by WP United States, mid importance by WP UK and high importance by WP Canada. Dabbler (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

IZE instead of ISE in the British context is referred to "Oxford Spelling". Its a mix in the UK, but in Australia and New Zealand we use ISE almost exclusively, ad IZE is seen (incorrectly) as incorrect US spelling. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that most readers of this article would even notice the difference in spelling whether ize or ise. As stated by others this article was started by someone who copied and pasted an article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and that was British English. Since this war was between Britain and the US, as well as being highly relevant to Canada, I don't see how the use of ise in Australia and New Zealand is of any relevance here.

RJensen - just read the article, excellent work. Very interesting read and I think a pretty valid interpretation of how this article has come to be. http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

From my understanding, the vast majority of "American" Canadian spellings are related to modern concepts and technology (e.g. "program" rather than "programme", "curb" rather than "kerb"). I'd imagine that for a two-hundred-year-old event, the spelling would end up looking like British spelling (the "-ize" variant) whether we specify Canadian or not—no?

Either way, Dabbler's point about Project importance is, I think, the strongest argument to keep the spelling Canadian. I'm surprised it somehow turned out mid importance to WP UK. Does it mean the Brits really do secretly care about the colonies after all? Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

British Invasions Repulsed????

In the infobox - results section, it says "British Invasions repulsed". That would be fine, except for the fact...they weren't.... :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

To quote the article itself "The British occupied the town of Castine and most of eastern Maine for the rest of the war. The Treaty of Ghent returned this territory to the United States." and for the British force in the south "In early 1815 the British gave up on New Orleans but moved to attack Mobile for a second time. In one of the last military actions of the war, 1,000 British troops won the Battle of Fort Bowyer on February 12, 1815. When news of peace arrived the next day, they abandoned Fort Bowyer and sailed home." Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For the meantime, to make this accurate, I have changed it to "Some British invasions of US repulsed, others left after peace declared". If anyone can think of a better way of putting it, please feel free to modify. I do think its a good idea to have this summary information in there... bit more meaningful than just having something about the treaty. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by the language used at the time DL. In the case of the invasion of Baltimore, reading the source document would lead one to believe that the British fought a minor battle got to the fortifications and decided they needed to get back to the ship. The invading fleet had been stopped cold. The minor battle was about 500 dead on either side. The British were down to about 5500 effectives with their commanding officer already KIA. The force then realised they were outmanned 4 to 1 and promptly marched back and left. That is a repulse. In the battle of New Orlean's 20% were hors de combat, and quickly got back in their ship. According to the article that I read on it the commander after spending months in Cuba thought he'd better go do something and overran an minor fort, for 1 day. That won't wash. You can't blame the commanders for not saying Hey we got our rears handed to us (or were about to have the same happen to them).Tirronan (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"US" or "U.S."?

Both "US" and "U.S." are used throughout the text. Of course, this should be be consistent. Which would be best to use? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that both versions are accepted on Wikipedia. So I suggest we pick one and stick to it. There are far more instances of U.S. in the current article (about 3:1) so I have changed the US to that.

Incidentally with regard to your comment about unAmerican spelling, we are currently using the spelling of the largest American country. ;-) Dabbler (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to find some way to slip that one into convrsation ;) Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

According to an article in About.com, it is optional.[5] Personally I prefer "U.S.". TFD (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there an actual resolution to the discussion above about WP:ENGVAR? Because according to the MoS, "US" predominates in British English but "U.S." predominates in Canadian (and American) English. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer "US", but since it's now all been made consistently "U.S.", I can't see any compelling reason to change it. This is one of very, very few articles that can't be saved by pointing to ENGVAR, though I think some consistent version of Canadian is the "best" solution—it's basically what we have right now, and thus would require the least "cleanup". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have really seen this as regional dependant, it just comes down to whether you use full stop for Acronyms or not also for U.N etc. Don't think it really matters, as long as we pick one - which someone already has done!Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Canadian perspective

Was there a Canadian perspective in 1812? No one articulated them in 1812. I think the perspective came after the war as British Imperialists (eg John Strachan) interpreted what happened in terms of integration into the elitist British empire rather than the republican/democratic USA. Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have also objected to the repeated attempts to insert the POV statement "US invasions of Canada repulsed", while insisting that the British only withdrew from some US territory when peace was concluded. The Americans held Amherstburg and Sandwich and the Detroit River frontier from late September 1813 to the end of the war, and indeed refused to withdraw until the British relinquished Mackinac Island and Prairie du Chien. HLGallon (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I only said that it was incorrect that British Invasions were repulsed, and leaving this in the article was a POV issue. I didn't say the US invasions were all repulsed, of course, they were not. However there is a difference - the British invasion forces were still in campaign in the US and moving to take more territory, and still mobile because of the British fleet. The US forces, as far as I am aware, were staying put and not actively on campaign. I don't think there is a place to mention this in the article, but it is something I think that is of interestDeathlibrarian (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

One thing historians seem to like to ignore is the fact that the British (with their native allies) controlled part of Michigan and Illinois and all of Wisconsin from 1814-1815. I guess this doesn't fit either perspective of the war: Canadians prefer to emphasize the contributions of the Canadian militia, while Americans don't like to admit that the British controlled a big chunk of the U.S. Rwenonah (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the British control of the Northwest territory (Michigan-Wisconsin & adjacent areas) and their close alliance with the Indians there was a major American grievance. It was resolved with the death of Tecumseh (1813) and the collapse of his coalition. The British during the war did NOT repel the 1813 invasion of western Ontario. Rjensen (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(Insert) Actually, according to the Concise Historical Atlas of Canada the British Army had de facto control of Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin from 1814 - 1815'. After the much-emphasized Battle of the Thames. Clearly, the death of Tecumseh did not resolve the issue, as the British retained control of the disputed area. Rwenonah (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So if the British had de facto control of Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin as well as upper Missouri, Eastern Maine, part of New York, Mackinack Island, Prairie du Chien, Fort Bowyer and surrounding area in Alabama and (I think) they were in Georgia near Point Peter....they controlled *a lot* of the US at the end of the war...seemingly a lot more than what people would seem to want to acknowledge???? (queue dramatic music). Considering they had sea power, had blockades in place, and an army that generally won when fighting in balanced conditions, I guess it's not suprising. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Although Detroit was recaptured by the Americans in September 1813, continued British occupation of the fort on Mackinac Island, which they had captured in 1812, enabled them to control most of Michigan. The territory was finally returned to American authority under the terms of the Treaty of Ghent at the end of 1814."

http://www.city-data.com/states/Michigan-History.html

"If the eventual peace treaty between the US and England was to be based on considerations of present occupation, the US was in danger of losing the whole region of the upper Missisipi" (Wisconsin and the War of 1812, Reginald Horsman, The Wisconsin Magazine of History , Vol. 46, No. 1 (Autumn, 1962), p 13)

"At the end of the war the British controlled Northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Eastern Maine, and points along the New York border" - Gillum Ferguson http://www.press.uillinois.edu/wordpress/?p=9049 Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the war, British and Indians controlled upper Missouri, Eastern Maine, part of New York, Mackinack Island, Prairie du Chien, Fort Bowyer and surrounding area in Alabama and (I think) they were in Georgia near Point Peter(?). I agree, with Rwenonah - I think how much US territory the Brits had at the end of the war is generally, understated, including the wikipedia page Origins of the War of 1812 which says only "At the end of the war, the British held parts of Maine and some outposts in the sparsely populated West"Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Immigration from the U.S. was discouraged, and favour was shown to the Anglican church as opposed to the more Americanized Methodist church."[Landon 1941, p. 123[6]] The source does not support this statement. The first part is true but the administration had always favored the Anglican church. TFD (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

After Tecumseh's death the Indians raids largely stopped and they could not get British war supplies. That was the grievance that got resolved. In line with the Treaty of Ghent the British pulled out their soldiers in the unsettled upper Midwest (but that had not been a key issue because very few or no Americans lived there in 1812) Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer your original question, I doubt there was any consciousness of being Canadians - except where the term was applied to French settlers in the original Province of Quebec. It is doubtful that there were any English Canadians over the age of 30 [who were born] in Upper Canada. TFD (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There might well have been many people in Upper Canada over the age of thirty, as the majority of the population was made up of Loyalists who had fled the the U.S. in adulthood. Their descendants would probably have included some people over thirty by 1812. Rwenonah (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant people who were born in the province. Incidentally, most people had not "fled" the U.S., but had come to UC for economic reasons. The math is 1812-1783=29. TFD (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, about 60,000 people fled the U.S. after and during the American Revolutionary War. I'm not sure how many came to Upper Canada, but they were the first to seriously settle the area. They were fleeing in every sense of the word, mainly from post-war anti- Loyalist sentiment.American immigration, probably mostly for economic reasons, came later, although I think recent immigrants made up most of the population in 1812. Rwenonah (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, these were the Loyalists or United Empire Loyalists, and they were terrified the US was coming back to take them over, hence the "legs" for the myth in Canadian popular legend. Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The highest estimate for loyalists arriving in what is now Ontario is about 7,500, most of whom were recent emigrants to the U.S. 500 were slaves, hence the urgency in addressing that problem. 2,000 were Indians. The overwhelming number of people in the province were "late loyalists", part of the American move west, and would have thought of themselves as Americans, as did many of the original loyalists. Few of either type of loyalist aided the British army and their Indian allies in fighting off the Americans, even though technically all adult men were members of militias. Even most of the original loyalists had come to Canada for economic reasons, although of course a small number of them were extremely loyal. TFD (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly interesting. Think you're right. What's interesting about that is that if the Loyalists immigrated for economic reasons, I seriously doubt they would be all that concerned, let alone terrified, about the annexation of Canada. This demonstrates the fact, supported by many historians whom I have cited, that the annexation of Canada was not a popular myth, but a recognition by post-war public consciousness of a simple truth.

One facet of the war that hasn't been looked at is the American popular myth that expansionism was not a major cause of the war( although this idea has its supporters as well). I suspect this has its roots in the constant liking to remain mentally "in the right" in international affairs the American public possessed (and continues to possess). Rwenonah (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please add Tuscarora and Oneida Nations as Allies of the U.S.

Would someone please add the Tuscarora and Oneida Indian Nations as allies of the U.S.? Also, the "Iroquois" are listed as allies of Great Britain. Actually, the Iroquois was (and still is) a League of Six separate native nations, of which the Tuscarora and Oneida were members. However, during the War of 1812, the the Iroquois became split, and the Tuscarora, Oneida and Seneca nations sided with the U.S. So, while you are making corrections, please delete the Iroquois as allies of Great Britain since half of the League sided with the U.S. The largest 1812 Bicentennial monument project in the U.S. will be unveiled on Dec. 19, 2013, in Lewiston, NY, in honor and thanksgiving to the Tuscaroras for saving dozens of American lives during the British invasion of Western New York. It is aptly named, "Tuscarora Heroes." 72.228.164.102 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Carl Ben's book "Iroquois in the War of 1812" seems to say that they mostly were allied with the British? http://www.amazon.ca/Iroquois-War-1812-Carl-Benn/dp/0802081452 Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most of the Iroquois were allied with the British, but far from all. Again, the League was split. On page 149 of Carl Benn's book, you'll see the Tuscarora Nation (one of the six Iroquois nations) allied with the U.S. Two big Seneca leaders, Red Jacket and Cornplanter, were also on the U.S. side. If one of the editors would please add the Tuscarora and Oneidas as allied with the U.S. on the main page, it would be appreciated.

American expansionism: general comments

It has been a while since I read this article and I think this section in particular deserves some comments. It has become so long and full of quotes from different historians that is probably more confusing than informative for most readers. It is more of a study in the difficulties of historical research than it is of the (potential) causes of the war. It is obvious that a lot of effort has been put into this section, but that does not necessarily mean that it is particularly suited for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. There are currently quotes from historians about opinions of other historians (suitable for a thesis in history, but not for here). Not only does the article mention the time during which a historian held an opinion, but the nationality of the person and even which institution he or she was at when that opinion was presented!

This is a sensitive topic. For Canadians, it is impossible to overlook the fact that an aggressive, military invasion of their (future) country occurred. Suggesting that those early Canadians and their lands were mere pawns in a larger power struggle is easily seen as demeaning. For Americans, declaration of war for territorial gain conflicts with their view as having the moral high ground, even if there were other, more righteous reasons. In its current state the article seems (IMHO) to say that the idea that American expansionism may have been a cause for the war is an outdated view held by Canadians and a few historians. Here are a couple of excerpts from US Department of State, Office of the Historian, which "is responsible, under law, for the preparation and publication of the official documentary history of U.S. foreign policy in the Foreign Relations of the United States series"[7] that say different: "Many who supported the call to arms saw British and Spanish territory in North America as potential prizes to be won by battle or negotiations after a successful war." and "As the Ghent negotiations suggested, the real causes of the war of 1812, were not merely commerce and neutral rights, but also western expansion, relations with American Indians, and territorial control of North America."[8].

While not wanting to minimize the work that has gone into this part of the article, I suggest that the section should be greatly simplified, essentially stating that the role American expansionism had in the declaration of war is still a matter of debate among historians and referencing those views. Silverchemist (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess we were trying to be sensitive to all concerned. There will always be Canadians that will believe that the primary and only real cause was the wish of the US to annex what would be the future Canada. There were no less than 19 years of escalating tension over maritime issues, and a rather weird big brother/little brother aspect to the relationship that further aggravated the situation. I don't see that changing anytime soon. I rather doubt that the US would have had any other way to prosecute the war other than invading the British colony and there were elements in the US that certainly wanted to annex. The crux of the problem remains that there remains a large segment of the former British Commonwealth that will always see this war as brought on by simple American land greed. However, there were things that arose out of the war that both sides learned. The British henceforth always treated the US as a foreign power to be respected. The US learned that the Canadian Colonies were not waiting to be liberated and the US couldn't conquer it. Both sides learned that the other could be a first class pain in the rear when the Navys got involved. I've said it a hundred times, the outcome of the war was far more important than this sad sack war ever was.Tirronan (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all you say, but do you think it would be useful to say that the role of expansionism is still debated and leave it at that rather than go into the nuanced arguments and rebuttals that the article currently contains? I think clarity may have suffered while sensitivity was pursued.Silverchemist (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no longer any historical debate. Certainly some Americans thought that Canada could be annexed, but that does not make it one of the reasons for the invasion, even if it was a potential outcome. Logistically, conquering Upper Canada alone would have made no sense, because it was dependent on the St. Lawrence for imports and exports. TFD (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no longer any debate? I would not have concluded that from reading this article. I think this comment illustrates the problem. The section is so complicated that there is no clarity. The quotes from the website Office of the historian for the Department of State would lead me to believe there is still debate. BTW Lower Canada, with direct access to the Atlantic, was also targeted.Silverchemist (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)