Scandals At

War of 1812

''An event mentioned in this article is a Mosquito ringtone Template:June 18 selected anniversaries/June 18 selected anniversary''
-

Not sure how to change this - under the Chesapeake campaign, link to Robert Ross should be highlighted red - no entry on that page for that person. -john
:I fixed it by writing an article on the correct Robert Ross and redirecting the link. Sabrina Martins Rmhermen/Rmhermen 14:53, Feb 3, 2004
-

The entry says: "The scene of operations naturally divided into three sections:" but then has four entries in the list that follows. But then there are only three sections after the list. Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with this topic to make a contribution, but it should be fixed. Is it three or four? -Nextel ringtones User:Frecklefoot/Frecklefoot\

This page is pretty neutral. I am impressed. In the United States it is taught that the Americans won the War of 1812 and in Canada it is taught in school that the British won the War of 1812. -stoltz

A Canadian friend of mine once told me that she was taught that the War of 1812 was fought to keep America from conquering Canada. Abbey Diaz User:Zoe/Zoe

Well, that is basically what Britain and Canada were doing, right? They won in the sense that the American invasion was expelled. Whether American objectives were met is somewhat harder to assess, since the British were willing to end impressment before the war broke out. In most senses, the war was a draw. I think the article does a good job with this.

I agree. One aspect where the article does lack is in its mention of British or Canadian players in the war. There is no mention of people that are war heroes from the war in Canada today like Free ringtones Joseph Brant and Majo Mills Laura Secord, although it does mention Mosquito ringtone Tecumseh, and Sabrina Martins Isaac Brock -stoltz



The article doesn't mention the standard British name for the war (the "British-American War", as "the War of 1812" doesn't distinguish it from the major war of that period - which may well have been linked to it). Also, it doesn't mention the tie-in between the economic sanctions that Napoleon was imposing on Britain through his Nextel ringtones Continental Policy, and those of the embargo imposed by the USA. Napoleon's measures were incomplete, but would have led to the Abbey Diaz Royal Navy becoming unseaworthy from lack of supplies which had traditionally come from the Baltic but by then were being second-sourced from North America. Knowingly or not, the embargo added to it (since it didn't affect strategic naval supplies for France, which had access to the Baltic). Together with a victory over Russia in 1812 to enforce the Cingular Ringtones Continental Policy, the capture of Canada would have completed the sanctions and Napoleon would eventually have won. The thing is, Americans of the day probably did know all this - since louisiana border Tom Paine had already noted Britain's dependence on naval materials in gate theatre Common Sense. PML.

:''You can edit any article right now.''

No. It doesn't help disambiguate, it obfuscates with too much detail in an inappropriate place. The "War of 1812" is unambiguous already

:Not if you went through a decent 1960s British education. Consider that I faced the following: exposure to the name "British-American War", and then learning about the games action 1812 Overture with a bit of historical background for that. What is such a child's most likely expectation on first hearing the term "War of 1812"? PML.

- the Napoleonic Wars have other names.

:As has the "War of 1812" - the "British-American War". Using only the former just increases the ambiguity to people with that background, unless some extra context is provided. It is only a US-centric education that doesn't have the latter term as well (and yes, it is quite possible for, say, Australian schools to get like that - Victoria, for instance, imported a job lot of US teachers a while back when there was the usual round of poor forward planning to get enough teachers trained.) PML.

The previous version was clearer, less wordy, and perfectly accurate. was directed User:Tannin/Tannin

::I did have a largely British 1960s education, PML. (Thank God.) Not an American in sight. I'll leave it to you to judge how "decent" it was. I was always rather more interested in the ''in''decent bits myself. Be that as it may, I have often come across the "War of 1812" name and only rarely the "British-American War" one. Given that I read a good deal of Napoleonic era stuff, and that as a rule I prefer to read British and Commonwealth historians to American ones (though by no means exclusively - good history is good history wherever it comes from), it seems surprising that the B-A War name is unfamliar to me, where the War of 1812 is immediately obvious. making facilities User:Tannin/Tannin



Despite PML's recent attempts to improve the wording, large parts of this article read like a primary school history book (an ''American'' primary school history book). I think we need to revisit at least the ''casus belli'' for both sides and probably the whole article eventually. bates gill Chadloder/Chadloder 01:44 Apr 16, 2003


- i nead to find out wat america would hae been like if the war of 1812 never happened, anyone no where i can find info on this?? could ya please email any ideas to tkwouter@yahoo.com

:Well, I think it's impossible to say how history would have turned out differently, so you could make up anything and argue that it is a plausible difference. best attended Adam Bishop/Adam Bishop 17:11, 18 Nov 2003

Potomac phase of Chesapeake campaign

In the Chesapeake campaign, the article begins with the burning of Federal buildings in Washington, but I suspect that this phase was preceded by the burning of buildings along the Potomac coast, and some concurrent (alleged ?) looting.

Battle of New Orleans

A lot of literature fails to mention that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the peace was already agreed to in Britain. The news of the peace simply had not reached North America yet. The point is that this battle was irrelevant to the outcome of the war. This article, and many other ones, imply that the battle had a major impact on the outcome, when in fact there was none.

David

Actually, since the treaty of Ghent had not been ratified by either Parliament or Congress, a British victory at New Orleans could have led to a repudiation of the treaty by either side.

has by user:GABaker/GABaker

It ''could'' have, most certainly. But both sides were very weary of the conflict for many reasons; there just wasn't the will to fight any more and war debts were heavy for both nations. New Orleans and the southern campaign were for Britain a sideshow within a sideshow; the real war, in Europe against Napolean, was already over.

Perhaps stating it even simpler: If the US didn't renounce the Treaty of Ghent after such an impressive victory why would the Brits have done so, if positions were reversed? The British policy in the war was primarily about containment and curtailment of US aggression, not about conquest.

As David said, the Battle of New Orleans had no real impact on the ending of the war. Pretending it did seems (to me) to be more about shoring up one side of the "We won!" "No, '''we''' won!!" postwar conflict, than about the actual War of 1812.

enduring literature User:Madmagic/Madmagic

And yet, the Battle is seen as the final land battle of the War. The final sea battle was the capture of the treatment friday USS Essex in 1815 off the coast of Chile. The significance of the battle led to the rise of Andrew Jackson and the opening of the American Southwest as the main axis of American expansion.

boy meets user:GABaker/GABaker

:Well I think you hit on the key point here. Whether or not it was consequential to the British, it certainly had a huge impact on the American psyche. Recall that after the Revolutionary War, despite the Treaty of Paris, the British still kept garrisons in the Northwest, basically thumbing their nose at the notion that the U.S. territory actually extended to the region and effectively saying: "you want us out, make us leave!" Battle of New Orleans, as you point, effectively removed any taint of this coming out the war and established in the American mind, as least as I view it (and I'm not a historian), as having ''mastery'' over the region, not just formal title to it. richmond and Decumanus/Decumanus / course deplore User talk:Decumanus/Talk 16:01, 13 Apr 2004

At the risk of being redundant (again ;) I'm going to restate David's original comments, since we seem to be wandering from them:

''The point is that this battle was irrelevant to the outcome of the war. This article, and many other ones, imply that the battle had a major impact on the outcome, when in fact there was none.''

The impact of the Battle of New Orleans on US expansion into Spanish territory in Florida or Texas or the southwest; or the affect on later US attitudes towards Britain; or on Andrew Jackson's following political career in the US all of those issues aren't really about the War of 1812.

The War of 1812 was already ''over'' when Jackson's US forces defeated the British army at New Orleans. That battle didn't restart the war; it was an unfortunate accident and (from the point of view of making any difference in the '''War of 1812''') that battle was inconsequential.

I'm personally amenable to including discussion of the Battle of New Orleans under a "postwar developments" heading or a "consequences of the War" section, or "postwar Anglo-US relations" heading. But c'mon now, people... the battle happened when the peace treaty had already been signed. New Orleans didn't alter a single comma of the agreements already set down between Britain and the US in the peace treaty.

And therefore, as David wrote above the Battle of New Orleans had no impact on the outcome of the war. QED, eh? :)

faith brings Madmagic/Madmagic 02:12, Apr 14, 2004

:I must be missing something. Can anyone point out something in this article that makes the Battle of New Orleans out to be of great significance. It is mentioned in just a few terse lines. I'm not sure why this is an issue here. I just don't see any claims being made in the article that the Battle had a great impact. crowded site Bkonrad/Bkonrad / sign then User talk:Bkonrad/Talk 02:38, 14 Apr 2004

Actually, the Battle of New Orleans is the subject of a full paragraph (under "The Southwestern Campaign") plus a one-line paragraph, and half of a following para in the next section. While seven sentences is indeed only a few terse lines, when those lines occur in an article which barely mentions the battles of Queenston Heights or Lundy's Lane, or Tecumseh's impact or his brother The Prophet, or General Brock's battlefield death there is something of an un-natural stress on a battle which ''did'' affect subsequent US politics and wars with other nations, but had no real affect on the subject of the article: The War of 1812.

Before anyone rushes in to point out "well, go ahead and add to the above" I really would like to see some understanding and agreement expressed. New Orleans was an important battle in the political history and development of the United States. Understood. Agreed. But... it wasn't important in the War of 1812.

I restate the point (again...) because it seems there is a subtle but very persistant unwillingness for others to simply agree with this simple point. Much is made of New Orleans, in the article and in this discussion.

Yet that battle wasn't anywhere near as important to the progress and outcome of the War of 1812 as the battles mentioned immediately above, or Tecumseh, or Brock's large successes and tragic battlefield death or the Great Lakes arms race of shipbuilding on both sides, or the Great Lakes naval battles, or the many US army invasions of Canadian territory.

Personally, I'd like to abandon this discussion and have all of us make the entire article better by increasing the amount of content on War of 1812 battles which ''did'' make a real difference. :)

Tippecanoe, Chrysler?s Farm, Sackett's Harbour, Chippawa, or Plattsburg Bay, anyone? Fort York or Fort George or Fort Niagara? Surely we've all given the New Orleans battle more attention than it deserves, by now.

reggie sanders Madmagic/Madmagic 13:58, Apr 14, 2004

:I agree that this article would be best served by expanding on the other aspects of the war that were more consequential in terms of the war. Until I began working with WP, I had not known very much about any of the main campaigns a bit about some battles on Lake Erie (I grew up in the Cleveland area). But even I had often heard that the BONO was fought after the treaty had been signed. I just don't see that such a big deal is made about it in terms of its impact on the war. Almost all I can recall of it is 1) it happened after the treaty had been signed and 2) it was a big step in Jackson's political career. Perhpaps it is because those extra-martial aspects draw attention to the battle such that it overshadows the main campaigns. I agree that the battle is probably better known that many other battles in the war, but not that it is made out to have had some huge impact on the course of the war just that it is more well known. and remold Bkonrad/Bkonrad / porcelain factory User talk:Bkonrad/Talk 17:16, 14 Apr 2004

:I really don't see what the problem is either. There is basically one sentence about the battle. Any less and it wouldn't be mentioned at all. factual it Decumanus/Decumanus / User talk:Decumanus/Talk 17:37, 14 Apr 2004

:The battle of New Orleans completely changed the United States perspective on the War of 1812. I think that's relevant to the war itself. I'm looking for primary sources to back me up before I go around editing it though. Basically, it made it so that Americans didn't necessarily have to see the war as a total loss. It's certainly the battle contemporary Americans were proudest of. In otherwords, mention should probably be made of how national unity was practically non-existant during the war (re: hartford convention) up until the battle. Shanoyu/Shanoyu 09:15, 7 Jul 2004

::One thing to note is that the war had not formally ended when the Battle of New Orleans took place. The treaty did not reach the United States until February 16, 1815, and had been signed by President Madison on Feburary 17, 1815.

Article II of the Treaty states

''Immediately after the ratifications of this treaty by both parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the armies, squadrons, officers subjects and citizens of the two Powers to cease from all hostilities. And to prevent all causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes which may be taken at sea after the said ratifications of this treaty, it is reciprocally agreed

that all vessels and effects which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the said ratifications, upon all parts of the coast of North America, from the latitude of twenty-three degrees north to the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far eastward in the Atlantic Ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on each side: that the time shall be thirty days in all other parts of the Atlantic Ocean north of the equinoctial line or equator, and the same time for the British and Irish Channels, for the Gulf of Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies; forty days for the North Seas, for the Baltic, and for all parts of the Mediterranean; sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean south of the equator, as far as the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope; ninety days for every other part of the world south of the equator; and one hundred and twenty days for all other parts of the world, without exception.''

Article XI stated:

''This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this day, or sooner if practicable.

In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and have thereunto affixed our seals.

Done, in triplicate, at Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen.''

Therefore, according to the terms of the Treaty, hostilites did not cease until the treaty was ratified and commanders such Pakenham and Jackson received orders from London and Washington respectively.

This is an important point. Hostilities could, and did continue, until news of the end of the war reached the combatants. The Battle of New Orleans therefore is part of the War. Had there been a transatlantic and transcontinental telegraph, then there would have been no Battle of New Orleans; I seem to recall that this was one of the selling points for the transatlantic cable.

As for the other battles; I have been researching them (desultorily, I admit) and intend to flesh out the details of these, in particular the Niagara Campaign.

user:GABaker/GABaker

Since the War of 1812 is generally accepted as 'a draw', the Battle of New Orleans' significance -like the outcome of the war- depends on which side of the border you're from. From an American viewpoint, it was significant because of the points mentioned above. In the American psyche, the battle demonstrated American resolve in expanding their frontiers westward (and their willingness to defy foreign powers who might interfere with that progress). And, Jackson did benefit from his fame there on his journey to the White House.

In Canada, the Battle of New Orleans is mentioned in passing as a footnote. The Treaty of Ghent is generally the point which Canadians consider as the end of the war. The campaigns in Niagara held greater significance, since they are portrayed as defining the birth of a distinctly Canadian nationalism where they made a conscious break with their continental cousins and, in fact, took up arms against them. American forces had assumed -incorrectly- that the recent settlers in Upper Canada (many were from the US) would welcome them as liberators.

From a technical viewpoint, hostilities would not end until the treaty itself was ratified by Britain and the U.S. But the treaty was signed leaving the Battle of New Orleans as a final exclamation point to the conflict. I would have to agree that the battle had a greater impact on America's post-war evolution, than it did on the actual war. One could argue that the Monroe Doctrine was the legacy of lessons first learned in the War of 1812.

user:SCrews/SCrews

Jefferson Quote

I've added the following line in the first paragraph under the heading of Operations on the Great Lakes and Canadian Border:

Former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson dismissively referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching."

The quotation from Jefferson seems to sum initial US attitudes to the conflict and has become a fairly well-known phrase in Canada. I don't mean to be dismissive of U.S. views, but AFAIK it's an accurate quote. Comments welcome.

Madmagic/Madmagic 07:32, 2004 Apr 6

:Pierre Berton tells me Jefferson's actual quote was "a mere matter of marching" but I'm not going to edit that since I've heard it both ways and who knows which one is correct? Not me! But the fact that he said it makes me think that it's just a fine thing to include. Lord Bob/Lord Bob 21:34, Apr 11, 2004
::Well you could say '...conquest of Canada as a "matter of marching."' to cover both possibilities? Mckaysalisbury/McKay 08:19, 25 Jul 2004


I was under the strong impression that the natives, especially Tecumseh, played an important role in this war. However they are barely mentioned, and the name Tecumseh first appears to announce his death. This surely needs correcting?

:I agree, though Gawd knows I'm not well-enough aware of the native contribution, outside of what they did in a few battles, to write it myself. Still, if somebody out there knows their Native North American history, now is a good time. Lord Bob/Lord Bob 00:42, May 5, 2004
::I have a couple of texts on Tecumseh; I'll check them as soon as I am free to do so. The Native Americans did play a major role as a British ally, and defeating them was one of the accomplishments of Jackson in the Southwestern Theater of the war. User:GABaker/GABaker

I found that this article isn't very objective.

It seems that the author of this article was biased in some fashion towards the British, given that at almost every possible opportunity, something derisive is said about the Americans involved in this conflict.

I don't care to hear the author's opinion of the "detestable" behavior of the American soldiers or how the British army (comprised of loyalists) "did excellent service." It would, in my opinion, make the article more valuable for historical research, if some of the grossly editorial comments were removed and were replaced by simple facts, not subjective opinions on how the author felt each side conducted themselves.
:There isn't one author. I've been working on trying to get the American POV through without offending the Canadian and British POVs. I do think you might be right; let the deeds do the talking.User: GABaker/GABaker

There's a big part of the problem: "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica." 1911! That explains the archaic style and expressions like "behaved detestably" and "ignorant of a soldier's business".


This page suggests that responsible government was an American idea yet the article itself on responsible government and other Canadian historical sources say it was a British idea. What is the conflict? SD6-Agent/SD6-Agent 01:33, 18 Sep 2004

I think you've just zeroed in on how the War of 1812 symbolized a crossroads for both American and Canadian identities. The war has been described as America's second revolution, because it confirmed its independence by resisting the bullying tactics (naval impressment, etc.) of their former European master. From their point of view, why wouldn't the citizens of the Canadas want to be 'liberated' from the British rule?

If not for the invasion of Canada, the sizable American settler population in Upper Canada may well have agreed with their southern neighbours. While the war helped define a new Canadian nationalism, it also encouraged the upper classes in York and Quebec to close ranks, thus stifling the evolution of responsible government in Canada until the rebellions of 1837-38. Canada wanted a change from the colonial government of the past, but at the same time, it didn't want an American version of it.

If there is a conflict, it's in the 'form' of responsible government that Canada wanted (in the British tradition) versus the American system of government which might have been imported had the US taken Upper Canada, and which some rebels in 1837 had advocated (unsuccessfully).

SCrews/SCrews

SCrews: Your observations are most apt. A couple of points:
*Could you please date your comments? It makes it easier to keep track. The easiest way to do this is to sign with four tildes ( ~ ) and the date will automatically be added alongside your IP number.
*You might wish to consider creating a new account. There are several benefits to doing this, including being able to watch articles you are interested in. Sunray/Sunray 20:15, 2005 Feb 20

Who is an American?

I'm not a native English speaker. In my mother tongue an American is someone born in America, the same way as a European is someone born in Europe.

So, when the article says that at that time 1/3 of Canadians were born in America I understood that the other third were born in Europe, Asia, Africa...

But after reading it other time I've realised what they meant is that they were born in the USA!

This problem is just mine, and American is an unambiguous term in English, or it would be better to clarify it?

:In English, 'American' almost always refers to somebody born in the United States. You're not the first non-native English speaker to have this problem and I'm sure you won't be the last. Lord Bob/Lord Bob 02:04, Oct 24, 2004

::Right, and even more specifically in the United States and Canada, "American" refers only to people from the United States. Some Canadians would be offended if you called them Ameicans :) Adam Bishop/Adam Bishop 09:16, 24 Oct 2004

request clarification

I find this matterial confusing:

:After the British defeated the French in the French and Indian War in 1763, the British began to settle Westward into North America.
:...
:First the colonies, then the newly-formed United States turned Eastward as the American Revolution began (1776) and ended (1783).

The British turned west but the Americans were focused on the East? I thought that Americans were focused on westward expansion which is one reason they split from Britian.

If this "Eastward" is correct, then wasn't this American shift in attention only temporary? Surely attention would have turned westward again by 1812. If so, then how is this temporary "Eastward turn" even relevant to 1812? If not, I need some more convincing that something kept America from the westward expansion from 1783 through 1812.

Did 1812 change the American character that caused all US states, including the coastal states, to shift their focus from "Eastward" (or European?) concerns to westward expansion? I thought westward expansion was always a key focus.

WpZurp/WpZurp 21:51, 14 Nov 2004

:That outline is a little terse and somewhat misleading. First, in 1763, the British sought to prevent colonists from expanding westward (see Royal Proclamation of 1763). This was one contributing factor leading up to the American Revolution. Second, the "eastward" focus of the colonies, I think refers to the revolutionary war period, where the focus of attention was on preserving the established areas in the east, and western expansion was something of a secondary concern during the war. An unrelated point, what is with the wierd capitalization of directions here. That looks totally nonstandard. Bkonrad/older'''≠'''User talk:Bkonrad/wiser 22:25, Nov 14, 2004

the entire "War of 1812 Terminology" should be deleted

Specifically, I'm talking about material at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#War_of_1812_Terminology.

We have this section on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=War_of_1812§ion=16#War_Hawks and this section on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#The_Embargo_Act_of_1807 and this section on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Impressment_of_American_Sailors.

Also, Tecumseh should not be defined as a "term". He's a guy, not a term. Then Tecumseh and impressment have their own Wikipedia articles. And these terms are '''already''' hyperlinked. So why have this little cruddy "terminology" section when there are full, complete articles? And all Wikipedia articles have a nice, terse summary at the start. Let's keep material collected together where one fix covers the encyclopedia rather than scattering redundant information all around.

Anyway, I'm asking for a justification for keeping this section. If I don't get a good reason, then in one week I'll just delete this section.

Plus, come to think of it, these sections should be in their own Wikipedia articles:

12 The Embargo Act of 1807
13 War Hawks
15 The Battle of the Thames

All these short, choppy sections is starting to make this (otherwise excellent) article look pretty junky. I'd almost suspect trolling but I can't indentify anything in the history.

WpZurp/WpZurp 04:42, 24 Nov 2004

:I'm inclined to agree. I figured somebody might have been going somewhere when I first saw it, but now I look again and no, it really doesn't seem to be doing much. Lord Bob/Lord Bob 07:38, Nov 24, 2004

:Agree. I'd go further, and suggest everything from the "Impressment of American Sailors" section on down (inclusive of that section) should be either incorporated to the main body of the article and/or removed, as appropriate. The article used to end with the current section 10, "Effects of the War of 1812 on post-war North America: who won?" and that seems an appropriate place to end, to me.

:On perhaps a larger issue for discussion, IMO the entire article needs a rewrite or major editing to bring it into some kind of stylistic consistency and coherence. There's a lot of good information in it, but it suffers from disorganization. Cheers, Madmagic/Madmagic 05:08, Nov 29, 2004

::Yes, I think that's a problem with articles that began as a 1911 Britanica article: the convoluted, archaic prose sticks out like a sore thumb. Hopefully someone will roll up their sleeves and have a go at a much-needed revision to this mess.Kevin Myers/Kevin Myers 19:01, Nov 29, 2004

Some comments

I tried cleaning up the section about the naval war, to make it a little more readable, but it is still very American-centric. It doesn't really explain the strategy of either side, or give any descriptions of the actions of the British.

The remainder of the article could do with a cleanup and creation of a proper structure, and I agree wholeheartedly with the removal of the glossary.

3mta3/3mta3 11:18, 26 Dec 2004

I agree that the naval section needs more work. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the Lake Erie operations, but one gets the impression that the Americans dominated the Great Lakes, when that was not the case. US successes on Lake Erie were chastened by their failure to dominate Lake Ontario. Both countries now share the Great Lakes, it was far from an unqualified American success.

I've cleaned up the intro to 'Operations on the Great Lakes', and tried to give it a more balanced tone but the rest of the section needs work.

SCrews/SCrews 21:45, 20 Feb 2005

I completed a cleanup of the Great Lakes and Niagara campaigns sections. It should now have a more balanced tone, and recognizes that Lake Ontario remained under British control, due to British naval superiority and the continued possession of Kingston, and thus an uninterrupted link to Quebec and the St. Lawrence.

SCrews/SCrews 05:27, 5 Mar 2005

First declared war????

Sesmith added this line to the article: ''It was the first time that the United States had declared war on another nation.'' However, First Barbary War states that ''It was the first war declared under the United States Constitution.'' Both statements cannot be true, unless there is some qualification about whether the Barbary States of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli were "nations" at the time of the war. User:Bkonrad/older'''≠'''User talk:Bkonrad/wiser 13:34, Jan 24, 2005

:OK, I think the statement that was in First Barbary War is misleading, and have removed it. Tripoli declared war on the U.S., but the U.S. did not declare war [http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm]. Bkonrad/older'''≠'''User talk:Bkonrad/wiser 14:38, Jan 24, 2005

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
The article formerly contained a link to "United Kingdom" which is the root article about the UK. Although "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is the correct title at the time of the war, it doesn't shed any light on the war and is much less complete than the root article. I think that the link should be to "United Kingdom." I propose we change it back to link to the main UK article. Comments? Sunray/Sunray 03:47, 2005 Feb 12

:Neither the United Kingdom nor the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland contain anything specific in relation to the War of 1812. However, insofar as the latter was the actual political entity at the time, it makes sense to me that the link should go there especially since the link you added was a piped link United Kingdom/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Also the infobox link was also a piped link, but this time United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/United Kingdom, so it did not make sense to have them linking to two different articles, neither of which was what the text of the link said it was. If you want to change them all to UK, I don't care all that much, though I do think it is preferable to link to the correct historical entity. 16:42, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Causes of the war
I've removed some of the bullets from the article. The article is overly long (over 32 kilobytes) and needs trimming. These points are background to the war, perhaps, but we are not writing a book. It is a stretch to call them "causes" and we would need a whole lot more explanation to tie them in properly.

*In the Treaty of Paris (1783) that formally ended the American Revolutionary War, Great Britain ceded lands of her Native American allies to the United States; the Native Americans were not consulted. Nevertheless, in the following years, Great Britain sought to keep an "Indian Buffer" between Canada and the United States.
*Northwest Indian War
*Jay Treaty
* In 1811, William Henry Harrison defeated the Shawnees in the Battle of Tippecanoe.

If anyone thinks they should be back in the article, please explain. We will have to come up with other strategies for shortening the article. Sunray/Sunray 07:23, 2005 Feb 15
:If I'd read through the entire article recently enough to remember they were there, I'd probably have removed them myself. The Native issues influenced the Natives joining the war, in my opinion, but it didn't have much to do with the war itself starting. Lord Bob/Lord Bob 22:03, Feb 15, 2005

Cleanup
I put a needs cleanup notice in the article due to word-by-word duplication in various sections, sections with very awkward, difficult to understand, or incorrect grammar and diction, as well as underdeveloped analysis sections.
68.225.251.152/68.225.251.152 02:47, 16 Feb 2005

Edit: The "Motives of the UK" is particulary bad, seeming both POV and unencyclopedic.
68.225.251.152/68.225.251.152 02:55, 16 Feb 2005

:Good that you've added the clean-up notice. I agree with your comments. "The Motives of the UK" section should perhaps be retitled, rewritten and moved to a new section titled "Effects of the War of 1812 on Postwar UK", parallel to similar sections for the U.S. and Canada.

:The other thing that struck me was that several sections are also dealt with in articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. These include:
:*Battle of Lake Erie
:*Treaty of Ghent
:*Battle of New Orleans

:I think it would be a good idea to move anything not already covered in the main article and just do a short summary in this article.

:Other concerns:
:#An example of underdeveloped analysis is the role of native americans/first nations in the war.
:#Much of the article needs a good edit. For example "Operations on the Ocean" is choppy and overly chatty, and needs streamlining. Edit continuing. Sunray/Sunray 19:26, 2005 Feb 20

:68.225.251.152: Are you going to acquire a user name? There are a number of benefits when working on an article. Sunray/Sunray 18:40, 2005 Feb 16

posted @ 8:11 PM