Talk:Origins of the War of 1812

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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


Hello? Anyone here?

no--all are gone to war.
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)

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

Contents

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Merging

I think that they could be merged.


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

[edit] 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

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)

--FyeRoo 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Alex Fox
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)
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)
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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)