Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?

This is a page for discussions of "who won the War of 1812"

Whenever this question comes up, look at what the prewar missions were for each side and who came closest to achieving them. Remember that wars almost never end they way they were expected to.

The war began and ended with almost comical communication foul-ups common at that point in history. Britain was already addressing the American grievances, but that was unknown. And while Anglophiles like to point out that the Battle of New Orleans occurred after Ghent, the Treaty had not been ratified (thus the war was still on). In any case, had the British been successful there, it is quite a stretch to believe they would have returned such an important port to U.S. for nothing.

At the end of the war British forces occupied parts of Maine, at the invitation of collaborators in Massachusetts. Seems hard to believe that this had been the point of instigation of anti-British rebellion 40 years earlier. History Marches quickly!

Canadian Lieutenant Colonel Robert McDouall invaded and held the American areas in the west around Prairie du Chien as the war ended. Although, the American Navy's destruction of his base of supply at Nottawasaga Bay, and control of Canadian territory north of Detroit served as a subsequent staging point for further destruction of his root sources of supply by American cavalry. He withdrew sullenly and reluctantly after the war ended, but his grip had already been made untenable. He saved himself by leaving, but he could not save his Indian Allies.

Have not seen the source of the figures given for the wars human casualties, but in most respects they appear rediculous at first glance.

So who tried to do what, and who came closest to successfully fulfilling their pre-war aims?

The British did not want another war. They had already given in on the impressment issue, but that came about too late to prevent the war. With war thrust upon them, they sought to hold on to Canada (successful) and to invade the U.S. (unsuccessful). Weak holdings in Maine and Wisconsin notwithstanding. They HAD sacked Washington, but what was largely the same force was later turned back at Baltimore and defeated outright at New Orleans. Their intention of suspending U.S. trade with Napolean was (successful), but largely unnecessary. He was already going down to defeat in Russia in 1812. The resulting Naval war was not profitable to Britain, other than maintaining the pre-war flow of supplies from New England to Britain's Army in Europe. The naval war on the high seas did much damage to both sides and achieved little results for either (unsuccessful). The naval war on the lakes was quite a contest, but only the Americans gained the upper hand and kept it anywhere, and then only on Lakes Eire and Champlain (unsuccessful).

The Americans tried to invade Canada to force concessions from Britain (unsuccessful), except for small holdings around Detroit. The fight against Britain's allied Indian tribes and the Spanish was more decisive (successful). The goal to remove Empire traders from the American West, and interrupt their aid to the Indian tribes was (successful). The Americans intended to inhance their national prestige at home and abroad by confronting the world's only super power, for the second time. In the last half of the war the Americans confronted superior numbers of professional forces on land and in MOST of those cases fought them to a stand-still (successful). At sea, the war was never winable for the Americans in the classic sense, due to the Royal Navy's overwhelming numbers, but most unexpectedly they forced Britain to confront the fact that the cost of the war at sea was too high for them to continue indefinitely, even after Napolean was defeated (successful). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericderrotten (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Another question as to who won the war...

America gained Carleton Island, the only territorial exchange during the war. The US also defeated the last two invasions at Lake Champlain and again at New Orleans. The US may have lost the invasion of Canada but that was not the end of the war was it. The Canadians/British won in terms of defeating the American invasion. However, the war ended after America defeated the Canadians/British invasion at Plattsburg and the British by themselves in Louisiana. If anybody won the war, we did, the war ended after two great American victories. Because of the battle on Lake Eire, The Great Lakes were split between America and Canada, The US was also the only side to gain land in the war, Carleton Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This sounds more like a defensive war for the United States in which they were forced to engage in because of British blockades and in defensive wars if the offender quits then the defender won the defensive war. The treaty did not get any land and impressment did stop so the US got what it wanted and the British were probably no longer interested so it seems to be a no gain for both sides. The war did force the British to fully recognize its former colony as a real country to be negotiated with and not something they can bully around as if it were still there colony. That is why it is often called the "2nd war of independence" for the US because it ended any assumption that the british could control us in any way like it did before the US revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the US declared war, the US took part in a blockade of British trade (It obeyed the continental system) before the British responded by blockading the French. It was, as you say, no gain for both sides and losses for both. Narson (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a riddle for you all. What do the Sino-Indian War, the First Italo-Ethiopian War, the Falklands War, the Gulf War and the War of 1812 all have in common? They all have a clear military victor. Don't get it? Let me explain to all those who cannot (or will not) wrap their minds around that fact.

The Sino-Indian War. China attacked and advanced, then a cease fire was called by both sides. End result, things returned to normal. China gained no land and are still considered the victors. The First Italo-Ethiopian War. Italy attacked Ethiopia, Ethiopia stops them. Ethiopia asserts its independence from Italian colonialism. Ethiopian victory. Falklands War. Argintina attacks Britain. Bitain retaliates and takes back its land. Quote "Decisive British military victory (status quo ante bellum)" (which is what I think war of 1812 page should say). Gulf war. Iraq takes land. Iraq pushed back. Kuwait liberaited, Saddam stays in power. Obvious coalition victory. War of 1812...blah blah blah...Obvious (to most) British military victory. I can run more precise parallels if someone wishes to challenge the similarites of these. I'm also not saying the US didn't gain but I'm saying, militarily, that the British won. Most other war pages have simply "X military victory", no political or diplomatic victory, just military, which I hope we can agree that the British did achieve.

I realize that these wars are not identical to the War of 1812 but they posses striking similarities in at least one aspect. It is because of those historic precidents that I say that the result section be replaced to say either what I suggested above or something along the lines of "(disputed) British military victory". I welcome discussion but saying any of those are "flawed comparisons" is irrelivant. There is no war identical to the War of 1812 but there are those that are similar, of which these are some. This is not a democracy, this is history. The majority opinion about something does not make it so. That is how injustices are created, when a majority oppresses a minority, and even more so when a minority are 100% right...Ok that s kinda silly but it still remains valid. I await your responses and if no one can convince me that the page should remain as-is, it will be changed (I am a resonable person).70.54.17.167 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the heading section and understand that no contributing editor will bother responding to this sort of thing again. --Tirronan (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the heading section and I feel I have presented new evidence. My source? Wikipedia. I have read no mention of these wars in archive 8 or 9 (I read someone said the falkland war comparison was flawed but that was it). I have read no suggestion to put disputed in front. I have heard no one ask why we are talking about other factors when the military aspect of the result should be British military victory. I also see no NPOV tag or disputed tag above this article when there have been enough people complain that there should be. If all of these have been addressed then please point me to them as I have looked and obviously have failed to see all of these points because you are more knowlegable of the discussion page. While your at it I would like to take a look at the definitave source that trumps all other sources that says that this was not a British military victory.70.54.17.167 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. The Falkland War example is flawed....I don't recall us launching a counter invasion of Buenos Aires. In this article the result is far more complex, as the constant arguments indicate, so rather than present people with a flawed two or three word result, we instead state the unquestionable result (That the treaty returned everything to the status quo) and encourage people to read the article and make their own mind up as to who really won. Narson (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No they didn't launch a counter offensive against Buenos Aires..... and they still are considered the victors. Seems you are hurting yourself with that one. The result needn't be complex. It was a military victory for Britain, do you agree or disagree. I am not saying the US didn't gain some stuff, but militarily they lost, that is what should be reflected. In the falklands war you could say the Argintine people won the war because they overthrew a dictaorship three days later. That's great but they still lost militarily as is reflected by the article. Thank you for speaking to me properly and trying to answer one point of my many point argument btw. And wikipedia is a source on how to present information and facts in wikipedia.70.54.17.167 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood. The War of 1812 /started/ as a defensive war, then it manifested into something else unlike the Falklands, which was purely a defensive war. That was my point about invading Buenos Aires. If we had done so, the very nature of the war would have shifted. As it is, we launched an invasion of the United States and thus the goalposts shift somewhat. The result of a war is also not necessarily military in nature, certainly not in that period. The idea of 'Total War' as we have now (Where total destruction of the enemy is the only acceptable result) was not prevailant at the time. Britain won a majority of the military battles and ended the fighting of the war in possesion of American land. Yet we ended the war with no gains. The phrase 'Winning the war but losing the peace' comes to mind (though not quite accurate). As for sources, as many sources say it is a draw or even hint at American victory as say the British one, probably less sources say it was a British victory infact, as it is a fairly forgotten war in the UK so most of the writing is done by American historians. So we have what we have now, where we state the result and let people make up their own mind as to 'Who won'. It is an infobox, not an encyclopedia. Don't like the answer in the infobox? Read the article, make up your own mind. Narson (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a British submarine torpedoed an Argintine ship outside the 200 mile radius and the British did consider launching an attack on Argintine soil "in defence", although they didn't. I am sorry to say but any historian who says that the US won a military victory in the war of 1812 is the most biased unprofessional in the field, although I would still like to see definative sources that say the US won for some laughs. Again, the British won militarily, the US won "in spirit", which is something a soccer team tells themselves when they hold the other team to a goal or two victory. More writing is done by American historians furthur skewing the truth which is why it must be corrected here. "Britain won a majority of the military battles and ended the fighting of the war in possesion of American land." That means it was a British military victory from your own mouth. Winning the war but losing the peace = British military victory(status quo anti bellum). And also no doubt American readers will consider they won, Canadian readers will be outraged that its not a British victory and still consider they won, and British readers will not know the sacrifices that their fore fathers made to achieve a clear military victory. And I have made other arguments about this that don't seem to be getting addressed either.70.54.17.167 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, if Britain had launched an invasion of Buenos Aires and it succeded, as the invasion of Washington did, and burnt it to the ground then I think it would still be a British victory, even if they didn't take land. Also there is such a thing as scorched earth warfare. It was a strategy of many powers, not to conquer but just attack and do as much damage as possible and then retreat. This war seems to be the one exception to universal measurements as to who wins a war. Now that I think about it even more you guys really don't have a leg to stand on with this, but I look forward to your counter argument.70.54.17.167 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already said it. Both sides achieved their war aims, so both sides won.GABaker (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

...You all seem to be sidestepping the issue of a MILITARY VICTORY. I cannot recall any page that does not list who won militarily. There are other pages that indicate what each side gained and lost but in the box it must say that Britain beat the US militarily.70.54.17.167 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you read the bit right next to your selection quoting, Anon, you will notice the bit about how wars arn't just about the military results. The war was a wash. We signed a treaty to that effect with the yanks almost 200 years ago, the Treaty of Ghent, which was the end result of the war. In the result we could put 'Treaty of Ghent' and then people can go to that article and read 'Status Quo Ante Bellum'. If a select group of canadian readers will be outraged, as you put it, I suggest they might consider that their country didn't exist and that the two Colonies of Canada were controlled by the UK, their beef over the inability of the UK to gain concessions should be addressed to the long dead Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, not on this page. Believe me, I would be more than happy if we had won the war and had taken Vermont and New Hampshire and maine, securing control of extra lobsters and maple syrup, but we didn't. The result of the war was a wash. Both sides got some of what they wanted. Both sides didn't get all of what they wanted. As for failing to recall any other war page that doesn't list military result? American Revolutionary War would be a good contemporary example. The result is not simple so we don't have a result. As I said before, that is an infobox. This is an encyclopedia, not a reference card system, so, read the whole article rather than just the infobox. Narson (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

May I tell you about the Sino-Indian war. They fought, China advanced then peace was called and they returned to their previous lines....and China won even though it gained nothing. Exact same thing happened here. I have read countless other articles that indicate who won militarily, why not this one? It more about article composition and layout than anything else now. It is irrelivent whether Canadians were a country or not (that is the last thing I want to start). I fight solely for history. The ARW page is pretty clear to me. Britain lost because America is indepedent. The reason there is no result like that is because two nation states were not fighting eachother. You are citing a non traditional war not between two powers but internal rebellions. Please cite a proper war. Many people don't have the time to read the article. They want a concise summary of the event. AND you are still sidestepping....70.54.17.167 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I would like to know if someone amongst you disagrees with the following statements. 1)The US were the agressors in the war. 2)The US were pushed back from their conquests. 3) Britain and her colonies won more battles than the US. 4)Britain took land from the US in their counter offensives. 5)Britain were very inefficent at the negociating table. If those statements are true then that means that 1) Britain won a military victory over the US and 2) that they lost the negociation war. That translates to British military victory with status quo ante bellum (sorry for my previous spelling) I don't see what is so hard about that. They lost militarily, they gained diplomatically hence, british military victory with status quo ante bellum and a link to results of the war of 1812... please tell me where I am wrong.70.54.17.167 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"military victory" is meaningless. The US won the military victory in Vietnam. so what? The soviets won the military victory in afghanistan. again, so what? military victory in the context of an entire war doesn't really tell the reader anything nor does it even really mean anything.Zebulin (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is infact so meanless I'm sure you will not object to it being put in the result section...lol. OK, Firstly you are again quoting non tradional wars. I would agree with you that if the US government was beaten and dissolved and there were no more official US armies just gurrilla forces scattered across the country side and the world recognized that Britain was the only occupier with no official opposition and then were forced to be driven out because of said gurrilla forces (takes breath), then the US rebels would be considered the victors (unless Britain set up a govenment of loyalists who managed to keep the country together and at Britain's side)...... but that was not even close to the case so why are we talking about it. As for Vietnam that is like comparing apples to a chesterfield. I am also not very familiar with that war but I think it is arguable they actually did win militarily. True they beat the Viet Cong (usually) when they emerged to fight but they really didn't win. They never took Hanoi and I don't think they ever breached the 17 parallel. Their air campaigns were not perticularly effective and they did not manage to stop NV from supporting the NLF. They could not train SV troops well enough and they lost moral and support because of all of those reasons. That is not the sign of a desicive military victory as the British achieved. You people are really not supporting your side as to why not put British military victory in the Result section. Arguments like "so what" are very childish. If no one can state why the Result section should not be changed other than "that's the way it's always been and there are more of us than you" then I am afraid I will seek out some sort of an arbitration. Consider what I ask, I ask only that British military victory be written. Not any other kind of victory. I am not being unreasonable and I am not seeking to rewrite history. I am not being childish and changing the result myself because I believe in diplomacy but you guys are not presenting a good case and answering my questions. You are infact tiptoeing around the issues and changing the subject. And thank you Narson for correcting the formatting earlier btw70.54.17.167 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not gotten any serious responses to my last couple of comments so that leads me to believe that one of two things are happening. 1) Everyone is doing reasearch in some form or another to counter my logic or 2) you are incapable of objecting to my logic because it is so air tight. I think I will go with the latter until I am told otherwise. Jks, but come on, we had a huge back and forth and then a tenth of that... Anyway lets sum up what has been discussed. I will admit who won the war is a complex issue and I am not claiming that anyside won. I may even go so far as to say that overall, the US did win. Maybe. That is for the people to decide on their own and we have a whole page explaining that. As for militarily, there can be no question the British and their colonies won. I believe if it says British Military Victory it will appease everyone. Links should be provided to results of the war of 1812, the treaty of ghent and status quo ante bellum as well, that way, all bases are covered and complexity of the result is not an issue. Unless someone objects and furthurs our discussion I will change it in a couple of days. I figure that will start a dialog again :-)70.54.17.167 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No-one is arguing the US solely won the war, I don't think. We have a result, one that doesn't tell half truths or give a short answer to a complex question. The only other option, IMO, is putting:

See this section or this section for details

Similar to the solution used in the Bismarck article due to the controversy over her sinking. The reason debate curtailed was the selective quoting and the fact we /have/ been over this god knows how many times and you arn't bringing anything new to the debate. Narson (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I still think you are purposely expanding this one issue to a large one, that of who actually won versus my smaller issue of a military victory, I commend you for proposing a change from the status quo (not the status quo in the result section, the status quo of how the article has always been). This also leads me to believe that a mere proposition of change of the article indicates that I /have/ brought something new to the table, whether it be arguments or simply the fact that I have a clear concise argument. At any rate this is progress and this is a possible solution, although I still don't think it is the best one for me or potential readers. I will give other people time to comment. Also, do you alone, Narson, have the ability to implement such a change, or must you confer with your clique or have you already? I must say though I don't understand the reluctance to put military victory when we seem to have established this. Is it because you think it is misleading or the Americans out there don't want to say they lost militarily anyway? I am quite confused about this one issue.70.54.17.167 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Acctually, my dislike of stupid one line answers to complex issues in infoboxes is a long term thing, not your influence I'm afraid...and there is no 'little clique', I have very little to no dealings with Tir or the others outside of this page (And it is generally considered bad form to accuse others of engaging in them). Why must we pick one or the other. Not only is it misleading to put a British military victory (As people may make the same mistake you seem to believe in, that the military outcome is the result of a war) but also it will raise ire in the American editors. We clearly document in the article the various campaigns and their military result, there is no need to duplicate the info in the campaign box where it could be misleading. This is a long standing consensus so, really, more than 'I think so' is required (And honestly, thats all you have provided other than other wikipedia articles....no MOS or other guidelines that encourage it etc). If someone is willing to go through and provide overwhelming sources claiming that the result was a British Military Victory, rather than drawing the conclusion of a status quo or various similar results....then they should provide it. N.B. I said that my suggestion was the only other alternative I considered vaguely acceptable now, not a preferred alternative. It is a long long way in second place at the moment. You could try and get Tir or one of the others to back you up, you don't need my approvel or consent or assent or any such. Narson (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fat chance of that happening, hell I am an American and I think America lost that one but if asked to prove it, sheesh... The problem is reading the British side THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY COULD WIN IT EITHER. Which makes the argument rather mute. Argue till the pits of hell come but both sides sat down and signed because by their own evaluations this was a war with no end in sight with nothing to gain by continued fighting. Then there is that irritating fact that neither side every really had a complete military defeat of the other in mind in the 1st place but were playing for chits in a forseen negoiated settlement. --Tirronan (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen any of you even suggest a possible change to the way the article is now which is what lead me believe that I had presented a better case than the others in the first place but I guess I was wrong so I apologize. Now, I by no means called it a "little" clique. It is by all logic a moderatly sized clique, and I do not subscribe to that school of thought, that of "that it is bad form to accuse" I maintain it is a clique by definition whether you acknowledge it or not. Now let me try and clear some things up. Firstly I do not believe that the military outcome /is/ the result of the war (if anything it should be the other way around IMO). I have been preaching from the beginning that they are independent of one another. Have you read all my posts? That is why I proposed a military only victory and not simply "victory" or "decisive victory". I have searched the MoS but, to my knowledge, they don't have a specific guideline for this, so I am simply presenting evidence that the rest of wikipedia goes by these "unofficial" guidelines so we should too.

No need to duplicate the info?!:?!?!?! That is the only reason the box exists, to sum up and duplicate the info..... you will have to explain that one to me. It is misleading now to non-American editors and it would not be misleading to indicate who won militarily because it is the accepted truth. We have already come to a concensus for that, havn't we. It also may "raise ire" amongst the American editors... so they come before all other editors?!?!?! And I have indicated guidelines for the box where they indicate who won militarily. I submit to you, sir, that the wording now raises ire amongst everyone else. I just re-re-read the article from top to bottom and I also submit to you sir, that the mere fact the British did ask for land (coupled with the fact that the US did not ask for land [because they controlled none]) indicates the British did see themselves as the victors (be it an ever so slight victory) and the Americans the losers. They couldn't follow through at the table but that is independent of the field of battle. Narson you, in a previous post, said that "the goal posts shifted" because the British went on the offense. I submit to you that they did not, not entirely that is. They counter attacked and did some stratigic attacks and raids (Washington), but they did not go on any sort of large-scale offensive per-se. But that is irrelevent. Narson, you are the only person who is being polite about this. Everyone else is either saying "so what", "fat chance" or downright refusing to answer my guideline centered questions. Again I have browsed the archives and I don't recall anyone speaking about guidelines. Your other proposed solution is not what I had in mind either but I say it is a start that we are talking. I doubt I will ever get the consent of another editor. I am increasingly thinking that if all other editors refuse to give even an inch I will have to be forced to find other alternatives for a solution. Lastly @ Tirronan. See this para as to how the British felt they were doing in this war (demanding land and such). I will admit that Britain absolutly didn't want to continue the war because there were a gazillion more pressing matters at hand, making them hurry to get a peace, but that in no way diminishes their military victory.70.54.16.238 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are misunderstanding wikiterms again :) By guidelines I am referring to wiki style etc. guidelines, rather than other articles (Which form a precedent but, wikipedia articles are not precedents for the others....it is a weird bureaucratic wiki-world). If you cede that the military result is not the result of the war, why have it in the result box of a war? Now, for the campaigns and battles? Most should indeed read as British victories in the result box (Not sure if they do, I havn't looked /that/ far into the other articles). As for raising ire, well, this compromise reduces disruption on the page itself (By not raising the ire of the Americans just to make a point), sticks to what most sources we currently use indicate....the compromise that you see in the infobox (The treaty) has the benefit of being accurate, not /overly/ disruption baiting and true to sources. I can understand the frustration in not seeing something you think should be there in the page, and believe me, many things would be different if I got to write wiki the way I wanted, however, we all have to work within guidelines and policies for the well being of the project. I'd suggesting trying a few content edits, creating an account and getting involved in less...contentious...discussions. THen you'll quickly learn about the wiki guidelines and policies...not to mention likely find sources to back you up. Narson (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I already mentioned I checked wiki manual of style and its specific extensions (namely infoboxes). I was looking solely for what information to put in info boxes. The info box page was not helpful because it didn't say specifically what to put in the Result section of a war template. It gave general guidelines but not specifics for Results. Maybe I missed it somewhere and if a specific guideline for this particluar debate exists I would adhere to it (how I interpreted it that is :) ). But as far as I can tell it dosen't so I am simply citing the tradition already established by countless other wiki pages. Why have it in the result box you ask? Good question. Because it makes up a part of the war and the result. It is informing you of key aspects of this conflict. It indicates how the peace process was won by American negociators. Those are the principal things people want to see. The military aspect and the gains and losses aspect. There are no set number of things that can be included in the result section. In the ACW there are lots of diffrent results. Abolisment of slavery, reconstruction and Union victory. I do see where you are coming from but some things to note. No one, at least not me, is trying to anger American readers. Although I know full well that such a change would solicit negative reactions from some of the more vocal Americans. I see this compromise as still being overly generous to the American side though. It is just kinda wrong to not say something because it will anger people. It not like a giant injustice is going on but bowing down to appease the majority shouldn't happen. I also don't think it is particularly accurate to completely ingnore the military aspect. It's like a half truth or something I can't quite put my finger on it. And yes, it is frustrating. I read sportic posts by people from the past who want to have the result changed, then 3-4 users come down on them and tell them that it is not going to be changed and they fade away, not to say they don't deserve it (total British military victory isn't right either), but I feel if I had a team behind me I would be getting furthur. It's just that the infobox is clearly important thats why so many people complain. It should be irrelevent if Americans complain and change it though. I'm sure the holocaust page gets vandilised all the time but there is no way that page is going to be changed to appease the holocaust-never-existed minority. I'm not trying to equate this to the holocaust or say this is more important in any way btw, just using an example. And I have been a long time reader of wiki and I often read the discussions (because I find sometimes they say things more clearly than in the page itself) so I like to think I have an understanding of policies. As far as involving myself in other topics I'm afraid I would have nothing to contribute..... so I can devote all my time to this page :)70.54.16.238 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even trying to argue that this was a pure military victory would be open to lots of argument, for ever victory there was a defeat with the only resounding success being the blockade and even that ended only so so. Anytime you try to say one side or the other was winning you have a battle of platsburg ect where the other side retreated for no apparent reason. I have litterally had to force myself to read the Canadian campaigns as the are the most half assed sorry excuses for logistics planning or operations to the extent that they read like a banana republic war. Sorry I just can't support that argument. --Tirronan (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you interpreted the information the way you did. That kind of thought is why it should say to people "Britain won militarily", for the people who are biased and refuse to acknowledge that. They literally have to be told that they lost and smack them in the face with it. I find it particularly interesting you thought the Canadian campaigns were the worst of the British Empire's battles. They were the battles where they were out numbered by the yanks without experience or training and they still managed to push them back to American soil. Too bad the US got beaten by some of "the most half assed sorry excuses for logistics planning or operations". If you think that those were the campaigns where the Brits preformed worst you should seriously re-read the article. The point of military victory is only open to argument from the American side, where the US military can always win militarily but loses the peace. This is the exact opposite scenario and I think some people will try to evade the truth. Just randomly this http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/19thcentury/articles/militaryhistoryofwarof1812.aspx [43] source agrees with me as well as thestraightdope of the top of my head. I will find other sources to confirm a military only victory if need be but I'd rather not have to because anyone who reads the article (and dosen't have a pre-existing bias) would come to that conclusion so it's just easier to sum it up for people in the box. There were more American deaths and there were more battles won by GB, as well as land held by GB. Those are basically the only things that determine the victor militarily and they literally define who wins militarily so there can be no serious question about it, unless someone would like to prove me wrong (which I have a feeling a "half-assed" attempt will be made at it). I have re thought about my demands and now maintain that I will accept nothing less than "British Military Victory" being included in the results section no matter what else is put there. There is not a single valid or logical reason why it shouldn't be like that. FYI at " The Battle of Plattsburgh" they had to retreat because they lost the naval engagement (a rare occurance late in the war).70.54.16.238 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to both sides but for the 1st 2 years of the war in the Canadian Campaign the faults I was mentioning was mainly on the US side. Military operations were just flat sorry, command control worse and logistics all but laughable. However saying one side of this rather complex war had these problem is in fact even more problematic. We give you General Hull who surrendered a fort with twice the numbers of the attacking force with hardly a shot being fired. We have the mightly General Dearborn who wasn't the least bit better. However Brock was the only General that was worth much on the British side of the Canadian campaigns and with his death things got worse. Anytime you get to making much over the this however you get the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of Lake Champlain, the 2nd being worse in someways than General Hull's idiocacy, you take 10,000 battle hardened troops then watch your naval squadron get defeated then run away leaving your sick and wounded to a force 1/3 your size mostly of American Militia. There are equally bad examples on the British side. Then you have the Burning of Washington followed by the serious defense of Baltimore and again a rather ignominous retreat. Adm. Cockburn seemed to be able to defeat undefended hamlets and the American militia that formed just hours before the battle of bannenburg but seemed lost when fighting properly led and motivated American troops. As General Wellington pointed out despite the taking of the undefended Astook Valley they couldn't even clear the upper Canadian point of entry of the American forces. I've got some news for you, I really think that the US lost this one but what I think doesn't matter, its what I would have to prove and that evidence is sorely lacking by most of the major historians that have covered it. After reading the sources I have come to understand why. Every single time I went to point to a US and/or British reason for claiming victory here was a-b-c why I couldn't say so. --Tirronan (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't even have a source that says that the war of 1812 was a "military victory" for one and now you're going to demand the article describe it as such? You opened this troll/rant whatever it is with reference only to other wikipedia articles. Have you looked at the Korean War infobox?Zebulin (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just mentioned two sources that claim military victory (well one claims overall victory, but that's not what I'm pushing), in addition to the logics that I previously stated (more battles won, enemies killed, and land held for the British). It is a widly accepted fact to all but the most patriotic and/or ill-informed Americans. The Korean war??????? I hadn't realised that one side had beaten the other..... oh wait that war is still on-going. The award for worst reference goes to.......I can't read it........Zebulin. Congrats man. Anyway no one has proved any points as to why it shouldn't be that way. I said it before, no wiki guideline exists for this type of thing so I am using the only other references I have, other wiki pages. You guys (generally) are being pretty think headed about this. Just levying counter claims of non-sense against me when the only half logical answers you've given are that it would offend Americans to put British military victory and it may be a little misleading. Both of which are steeped in the utmost of irrelevance. I'll give more time for counter-arguments however please inform yourself of the recent conversations before making claims of lack of sources and citations....gute Nacht70.54.16.238 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That bloc of text with it's two non sources was in fact exactly what I was referring to. Your http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com source has many problems. It stumbles straight out of the gate by citing this very war of 1812 wikipedia article we are discussing as it's first source. Wikipedia articles can't use a source who cites that same wikipedia article as their source to improve that same Wikipedia article. This would-be source uses wikipedia articles for roughly half it's references. All of the authors conclusions about "victory" appear to be original unsourced conclusions which would need to stand on the credentials of the author, which given his choice of sourcing would appear to be about as credible as a random blog. note that MHO expressly refuses to vouch for the content of the article. You've already noted that the straight dope article doesn't discuss this notion of military victory. and even in terms of victory it hardly offers an unambiguous answer. It's main source supporting that conclusion is the Hickey quote: If the causes of the war are unclear, so too are the consequences. The United States has won most of its wars, often emerging with significant concessions from the enemy. But the War of 1812 was different. Far from bringing the enemy to terms, the nation was lucky to escape without making extensive concessions itself. hardly a clear source for citing a "military victory"Zebulin (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A larger issue is, what purpose does including original synthesis commentary in an infobox really serve? How are results like "military victory" even defined for a war? How can we make any such definition meaningfully useful for comparison across multiple info boxes? The obvious safest route is to place the most specific information possible in the result field and avoid general terms entirely. The other wikipedia articles originally offered would be well served by having such general terms removed from their respective infoboxes.Zebulin (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You raise some good points about that source. Whilst I agree that it can't be the sole basis for such a claim I don't think it should be completely ignored. That person is studying history in university. But you are right I will find some other sources when I have some time. As for what pupose it serves to include such a statement in the infobox, I believe it would actually improve the specifics. It specifies one aspect of the war that is IMO lacking. As the other aspects of the war seem to be specified in the infobox, this aspect should be treated with equal rights. And I disagree that the other pages should have "general terms" removed. They just go to sum up one particular thing which is a convienient way to relay information. As for how a military victory can be defined, I already gave some criteria (battles won, casualties inflicted and land held) but maybe there are others that would factor in to the equation. I'm being serious if any of you can think of more factors I would like to hear them to determine if it was infact an undisputed (albeit slight) military victory or closer to a complete stalemate. The scale is very tight so maybe a particular factor would be enough to not quite call it a british military victory. We are talking general terms for determining who wins militarily not specifics to this war necissarily. Sorry it took me so long to answer I feel a bit under the weather today.70.54.16.238 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More or less arbitrarily choosing criteria to define "military victory" on an article by article basis will destroy whatever value providing such information is meant to have as nobody will know what standard or definition is being used. We already show casualties in the infobox, why not add the specific information you would like to use to define "military victory" directly? surely it would be better to say how much land was occupied at the end of the war elsewhere in the infobox than to simply say "British military victory" and leave the reader guessing? One problem that should be apparent is that "military victory" does not in fact represent a "result" by some of the definitions you gave. For instance land occupied would fluctuate through the war and would not reflect the "result" in any sense unless the war happened to end with Uti possidetis. What information exactly is it you would like to convey with your military victory addition?Zebulin (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In campaigns in key territory, the defenders won--both U.S. and British. The war itself was status quo ante bellum. I still say it was a double victory, because both sides accomplished their war aims.GABaker (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol........ok first the criteria I chose arn't "arbitrary". They are what people always use to define who won a military victory in every traditional war. These criteria arn't used obviously if there is a clear victor like in say, WWII where there was a very obvious victor due to dissolutions of governements and peace treaties enforced on nations. I said if I was forgetting a criteria also used to define a military victor, to please point it out. If you can't think of any that means that those are the only criteria that dictates who militarily wins a war. Nothing arbitrary about it. Most articles don't have fervent nationals looking out to make sure that nothing bad is thrown out there for everyone to be told that their country lost something or did something bad. As for "why not add the specific information you would like to use to define "military victory" directly? surely it would be better to say how much land was occupied at the end of the war elsewhere in the infobox than to simply say "British military victory" and leave the reader guessing?", well then that would make everything too specific. I've said this a couple of times now so to all reading take note. The infobox is there to sum up a conflict/battle/whatever else. It provides a very quick summary of causes, results, casualties and other more general things. I am saying that there should be a military result there no matter what. Other pages such as the Iran Iraq war have the military result as stalemate because they abosolutly couldn't break the others lines and depleat the other country sufficiently to extort a favourable peace. If you truely think that Stalemate should be there as part of the military aspect then make a case for it. If you got support from the rest of the so-called moderators of this page then I bet you could enforce that. It would obviously be wrong because the British were still taking towns and making military offensives but you can try and I bet you might succeed. This whole page has just omitted what every other traditional war page has. They don't source who is the military victor. Its just a known fact just like it should be here. It just like the reason America doesn't have universal healthcare. Because Republicans say that if you "socialize" healthcare then you are on a slippery slope to communism. That of course is not true even a shade but people think it is. Just like if you say US didn't lose militarily. It's not true but if you say it enough then people believe it is. Not a very good example but I wanted to throw in how I feel about healthcare :). "What information exactly is it you would like to convey with your military victory addition?" I want to convey that the British won a military victory. What a difficult question to answer... And what do you think the reader will have to guess about by putting British military victory? They will be told something obvious. They object? They read the article and find out why it was a British military victory. There is much more to be guessed about by readers by not putting anything. British military victory is a result. I don't know what definitions you are refering to but I will clarify them for you if you require. @ GABaker. You are being too generous with the Americans defence of their country. The British did and were still making gains on their if I may say, weak, counter attacks and minor offensives (furthur indicating who was winning the war). If the war had gone on any longer and Britain put even more troops in North America and truely dedicated itself it would have started looking even worse. Anyway you sound like a broken record stating that they both achieved some but not all of their war aims (even though in reality America achieve none on paper, they are just lucky it turned out like that). Britain didn't achieve any either except the defence of Canada. Again though, that is irrelevent (how many times have I used the word irrelevent?). I am talking strictly military so please lets confine our scope to that. I will have to delay my search for sources though. The internet is full of pro-America propaganda. I almost thought America had completely won for a minute. I will have to go to the library when I have the time maybe contact some professors at UofT to write up a paper or something. I souldn't need a source for logic but I obviously am for this. P.S. This was an awfly long post wasn't it? And would you like it more if I got an account of should I just comment like this?70.54.16.238 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just letting anyone who is concerned(...) know that I have not gone away and have not looked for sources yet as I have been too busy to go to the library but I plan to go soon. Of course you guys could help me out :). Anyway I have gotten the last word in and no one has commented back in defence so I guess I've won this argument. (I'm sure that will solicit some responses.) As soon as I find a source or two I'll change the box post-haste70.54.16.238 (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to put this page on my watch list. The infobox is there for specific, easily summarised and unoriginal information. It's certainly not there for commentary of any kind. "military victory" is a nebulous phrase that certainly doesn't have a set definition and is precisely the sort of thing that should not appear in an infobox. The word stalemate doesn't appear in the infobox so I'm not going to use any of your time propping up that strawman. We might be better served postponing continuation of this debate until you have listed the sources you're finding. This will give a better sense of how if at all we could use the ideas you're offering to improve the article.Zebulin (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the result to this war should be changed to "British military victory" but "Political stalemate" on the following grounds:

British military victory: Nearly all the aims of the American war department failed in some sense or another.
Invasion of Canada for expansion of the republic's territories: This failed very miserably, and suffered numerous defeats at Queenston, Crysler's Farm, Chateaguay and Lacolle Mills. The US could not push into Canada and suffered more defeats than victories.
Preventing invasion of the United States: This also failed. Though the invasion of the northern states was turned back at Plattsburgh, the British invaded Virginia, which resulted in the Burning of Washington, despite being outnumbered. The British also launched an invasion of the southern states, though the attack on Louisiana failed at New Orleans, the British launched a new offensive against Mobile, which saw some success at Fort Bowyer but then the peace treaty ended the war.
Blockade of the United States: The British blockade, despite the over-celebrated victories of huge 50 gun frigates facing small 36 gun frigates, continued despite the American opposition. Much of the American navy was destroyed at the end of the war, and the blockade had a stranglehold on the American economy which devastated agricultural imports. Due to the blockade, the British could raid the coast at will and land armies at will.
Impressment of sailors into the Royal Navy: This did not stop until Napoleon's final defeat in June 1815, despite popular belief.
Support of tribes: Probably the only objective succeeded for the US, the Battle of the Thames resulted in his death, and thus the collapse of his dream of a united Indian nation.

A reason why this can be labelled as a British military victory could include the following:

The successful blockade of the United States
The invasion of Canada was repulsed
The British launched several invasions of the USA at will
Washington was burnt to the ground by British troops
The Americans surrendered an entire army at Detroit, they surrendered Mackinack Island, at Beaver Dams, Fort Niagara and Fort Bowyer. They lost the battles that were important, except for the Thames.
The impressment of sailors did not stop until the war with Napoleon was totally over in June 1815.
Most of the American Navy was destroyed, and the US army suffered heavy defeats.

In my opinion, since it is American historians doing most of the writing for this war, then it is bound to come out as a draw, or hints at an American victory, for some unjustified reason. Therefore, I believe, that after 100 years, the British should finally get a say in the outcome of this war.

I believe, due to how the war was going, the British could have easily won the war if the Treaty of Ghent had not been signed. I can't see how the war is a draw, considering how many PRIMARY objectives had been failed, and the fact that the British were invading all over the United States throughout the war, the US couldn't even defend its own borders. Obviously someone is going to mention the Battle of New Orleans, probably the only impressive American victory of the war and use that as a justification for victory, despite the fact that the British had invaded Mobile more than a month after New Orleans had occurred. By political stalemate, I mean the lobbying by both sides for a truce should go on those grounds. The result box could include "British Military victory", "Political Stalemate" and a link to this thread for discussion. (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

It's all been said before Trip. As a first step let's identify your sources and we could quote their analysis in the outcome/results sections. One problem is you identify primary objectives that there is no source for and for which we have sources explicitly disavowing those objectives on both sides of the conflict. I'm referring to the US plans to annex Canada as a war aim foremost among these. The war was a means to an end and annexing Canada does not appear to have been one of those ends.Zebulin (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody above has provided any kind of sources, and my source is Wikipedia. Why else would the US invade Canada? For a laugh? To prove that it could invade? It had a desire to expand the territory of its republic. Taking Canada was essential to the US war strategy. It failed, miserably, which qualifies as a British military victory, especially on the ground that Britain finished the war holding American territory too. What if I added in to the result, British military victory, political stalemate and a link to this thread for discussion? (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also a link to a talk page from an article is bad form, I believe. Trust me, if there were sources for it, I'd have it reading that the British kicked the red-headed step child America up one side of the continent and down the other, but that just isn't what we see. There is confusion over the US war aims, even from primary sources, so it becomes more difficult to assertain whether they achieved them. If we look at the war aims of the British, for example, they seemed to be some half assed belief they could put an end to the 'American question' among some at Horseguards. THey obviously failed in this. It is a complicated and mostly forgotten war, so historians will still be shuffling this one around long after we are done here. Until they make a call, we can't. Narson (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah but, that is further linked to "Caffery, Kate pgs 101-104", which is the source for my information. So, the war aims listed ARE the war aims of the United States. It failed in every one of them, except for destroying Tecumshe's confederacy, which it did succeed in. Britian's primary war aim was to defend Canada, which succeeded with flying colours. It also burnt washington to the floor, which was another psychological victory for the British. We finished the war holding American territory, and had their economy at a stranglehold. I think the best bet at this point in time, is to list it as a "Disputed British victory" and link it to this discussion. (Trip Johnson (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Any result that has to link to a bunch of anonymous amateurs mumbling on a talk page will never be acceptable. Narson (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just found evidence on how this war could be classed as a victory for Britain. The United States has been included in the Napoleonic Wars on the grounds that they purchased the Louisiana Territory, aided the French Empire and fought Great Britain. Therefore, since all powers fighting the Coalition lost the war, the United States lost the War of 1812. There is no denying it on that account. (Trip Johnson (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

You're using wikipedia as a source again.Zebulin (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because everywhere else is written by American historians saying "The war was a draw but in effect because of New Orleans the United States won". Its a load of twaddle. If Wikipedia is so unreliable, whats the point of having it online? How do we know that the war was a draw? If I did cite a reference I had in mind, it would be deleted anyway saying it is an unreliable source, so with all these pro-America New Orleans fanatics, its hard to actually get a say in the matter. I never used Wikipedia for a source that the US was strategically defeated on the grounds that their war aim of invading Canada failed because its global-wide knowledge that it DID fail. Therefore they were defeated. There is no denying that claim. They also lost their capital city, an event which was considered drastic by European standards. I say that "Britisih Strategic victory, Tactical Draw" SHOULD STAND as it is in the Result box, since technically it was a draw tactically but a strategic victory for Britain on the grounds that the US war aim failed. I do have a source, but everyone will only go and say its not a good source just to get out of the fact the US was defeated in this war. I'll re-add what I did add to the results box, and cite the reference, if people don't like it then DISCUSS IT before changing it. (Trip Johnson (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Until you present a verifiable source, any additions to the article on the matter of who won the war are original research and unacceptable. Editorial decisions are made by consensus, so you will have to convince other editors that your source is reliable. Your addition to the article has been reverted in the meantime. Sunray (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The source you presented seems to be, at least to me, reliable (The author doesn't appear to have studied history but does appear to have been recognised as being knowledgable with the grant of honorary degrees). The issue you have is that it clearly says in its first paragraph (The 'lead section' if you will, which is basically what the Infobox here is helping, info at a glance) that the war was a stalemate. The procedure is Edit -> Revert -> Discuss, so lets keep this on the discussion page for now. It is not Edit -> Revert -> Edit -> Discuss, in that way lies edit wars. Narson (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More to the point Trip, you insert things in articles without any supporting citations or sources not just this one but others and then demand that no one change it without the discussion that you yourself didn't partake of... So that you know I myself think that America lost that war, I think that Narson does as well but he will have to speak for himself. What you are seeing here is a consenus that there isn't enough historic proof to make that declaration. Reading Lloyd George's instructions to his negoiators, and both of Wellington's letters, as well as popular British newspapers at the time makes me very aware of just how sick unto death the UK was with this war and the US didn't enjoy it even slightly more, add to that fact that Madison was willing to continue the war rather than give up territory and things don't look at all clear anymore. There is no point at which you can point and say its all a victory on one side or the other. The 1st 2 years of the Canadian operations were horrid from the US perspective and yet became pretty good later often fighting British regulars to draws or winning. The sea wars went the other way but still no major gains were ever made on either side. Tirronan (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He's interpreting the Hickey position which I myself expound. As an American I would say that I would be biased to claim a US victory, but I think the evidence speaks for itself "What did the war accomplish? Although militarily the conflict ended in a draw, in a larger sense it represented a failure for Republican [Madison's party] policy makers. The nation [US] was unable to conquer Canada or to achieve any of the maritime goals for which it was contending. Indeed these issues were not even mentioned in the peace treaty, which merely provided for restoring all conquered territory and returning to the status quo ante bellum." You can also consider other factors as well: 1. Bladensburg/Washington DC sacked; 2. Public finances in disarray; 3. sectionalist (Federalist) discontent with the war has the country teetering on secession (Hartford Convention)

To call this war the Second War for Independence is SPIN and nothing more because to do so would be to imply an American victory by the sheer fact that the United States remained independent. To call this war anything other than a US loss is to put your head in the sand.

It is also a clear indication of the inherent weakness of the 'states' rights' camp. When state governors are telling the Federal President that state militia will not operate outside of the state; nor cross into Canada; it seriously calls into question the ability of the early Republic to act cohesively for any purpose.Cw1865 (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) According to Donald R. Hickey, author of 'The War of 1812 - A Forgotten Conflict' the war between the US and the UK, from the US perspective, was a tactical draw and a strategic failure inasmuch as the object of the war was to compel the British to agree to maritime concessions that the Treaty of Ghent obviously did not address. I quote, "The nation [United States] was unable to conquer Canada or to achieve any of the maritime goals for which it was contending."

Vis-a-vis the United States and the Native Americans in the Northwest and Southwest (19th century NW and SW for purposes of clarity), the United States prevailed and I quote "The war also broke the power of the Indians in the Northwest and the Southwest...In the peace negotiations at Ghent, Great Britain failed to secure a permanent reservation for the Indians, leaving them at the mercy of an expansive people determined to engross lands up to and even beyond the Mississippi."

Obviously from a Canadian point of view, simply preventing annexation is a victory inasmuch as it was (at the very least) a tactical objective of the United States.

From the point of view of the British, the war is, quite literally a footnote in their struggle against Napoleon - "The overriding objective of the British government was to secure the defeat of France, and all else was subordinated to this aim. Britain's policy, in other words, was preeminently European. Her aim was not to subvert American independence, but to win the war in Europe. Once this objective was achieved, her infringements [impressments, etc.] on American rights would cease." - And cease the British did, but not because the United States forced them to, but because Britain no longer needed to continue the policy in light of France's defeat. In this respect, Britain wins the war inasmuch as the American sideshow did not seriously threaten victory against Napoleon (and they continued to hold Canada)

Since this is the discussion board it might be noted that the United States, in the prosecution of the war, actually occupies part of Spanish West Florida (those two thin portions of Mississippi and Alabama that border the Gulf of Mexico). Obviously at the time Spain is in turmoil and is obviously occupied with Napoleon's invasion but is an ally of the British who actually occupy Pensacola en route to New Orleans. While its a stretch to say that the United States defeated Spain in the War of 1812, its true that the only true territorial acquisition by the United States was at the expense of Spain. Cw1865 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would leave the Hartford Convenion alone as it was nothing close to session and most of the elder representatives went with the express concern of keeping the hot heads out of trouble. In any case why this war is so tough to call a victor is just that, You can count Bladensburg but then you have to call Platsburg as well. You can balance the burning of Washington (which was more a measure of Armstrong's incompetence than Blazing British victory, but if you do then make the same check against Baltimore and New Orleans. When serious defense was offered then things failed pretty quickly. Also understand that both sides really just wanted an end to the war, the American's went into it expected to be defeated and thus went to war with dread, when they were still hanging in there 3 years later I think it was a shock. The other thing that gets talked up was that the US couldn't enforce the end of impressment by the Royal Navy, regardless of the treaty I have two sources that talk directly to the fact that the RN went to great pain to not impress American ships during the 100 days. Whatever may be said of the war America had proved it could be a royal pain in the ass if she decided to be.

The Hartford Convention is what it is, its simply a symbol of sectional discontent. Notwithstanding, you have to weigh many factors. Personally I look at the following factors: 1. the poor state of the nation's finances and economy (British blockade); 2. inability to project land power into Canada. I tend to discount Plattsburg and New Orleans for a very simple reason, it wasn't the purpose of the war to defend US territory, the British weren't agitating for territory.Cw1865 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But what really interested me the most about this war was not who won or lost, but how it changed the relationship between Britain and America permanently, note that not once was there a serious threat of war between the nations ever again. When a Civil War era General of Irish decent was stirring up trouble in Canada using American bases, the American War Department stepped on the bases and the General PDQ. This at a time when the US was strong enough to have thumbed a nose at Britain if it so desired. Tirronan (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"note that not once was there a serious threat of war between the nations ever again." - depends how you define 'serious' - there remained antagonisms with the British with respect to the boundary in Maine (not particularly serious), over the boundary in Oregon Territory (the whole 59 50 or fight! slogan during Polk's presidency (more serious) and right after the Trent Affair during the US Civil War (probably the most serious because this was a potentially macrohistorical eventCw1865 (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. Sunray (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Even then, there seemed to be a rush to a negoiating table, and again the US gave up the British representatives pretty quickly and with appologies, again pointing to the fact that the respective countries had earned a certain respect in one another's eyes at the least. Tirronan (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatically, the US fared much better than it deserved considering the circumstances when the Treaty was negotiated, albeit the repulse at New Orleans probably would've resulted in the same terms.Cw1865 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, New Orleans was not the crushing defeat it is often made out to be, yes some brass died, but reinforcements moved up. The British /could/ have maintained the siege with the fresh troops but instead decided to move to Alabama to cause some mischief there. As for the British not wanting terratory well....I'm sure some people thought about it. Especially considering the aristocracy ran the military and I am sure many of the wealthy military families either had entitlement to land in the thirteen colonies or were owed land or were just hoping for a nice big grant from the king should they secure one of the colonies back for the crown. While taking land permanently may not have been a war aim, there was certainly an attempt to ensure the fighting took place on American soil and at least temporarily to take some portion of the thirteen colonies back. Narson (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the odds and numbers involved in the expedition, 2000+ casualties out of an 11,000 man expeidition, New Orleans was certainely a defeat. Yes, the British retreat to Mobile, AL - but before the war this was owned by Spain, in this sense, the British aren't going there to cause 'mischief' per se. If the Treaty of Ghent hadn't been signed and the British had taken New Orleans, that would've been a major bargaining chip at the negotiating tables....Mobile? Wouldn't rate in 1812...Cw1865 (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All in all, with the ongoing -and far larger- Napoleonic war, Britain was content to call the war of 1812 a draw and didn't waste time in deciding a victor. At the time, some of the Americans, after being hyped up from their victory in the New Orleans, considered the US to be the victor in the war while the Canadians figured that since they had repelled the invasion, they were the overall victors. Technically speaking of course, the War of 1812 had no official victor. SuperDudeGuy (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, tactically, the British won; we had fewer casualties and won more battles than the Americans. I'd say it should be considered that the British won in a tactical sense, but in an official, technical sense, no one won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve Introduction

Here is some copy I tried to include in the second paragraph of the introduction. Any objections to my making these changes?

The war lasted from 1812 to 1815, although a peace treaty was signed in 1814. It is widely acknowledged by most historians that the United States lost the war but there remains a vocal minority of American apologists who continue to deny this fact to this day.

This despite the fact that the United States:

• unilaterally declared war on England and her colonies,
• unsuccessfully attempted two separate attacks on Canada,
• lost the support of several states and local militias who disagreed with the unilateral declaration of war
• lost control of significant parts of the State of Maine,
• had her capital invaded and many capital buildings, including the White House, burned to the ground,
• had her trade routes disrupted and international trade brought to a virtual standstill,
• was nearly bankrupted in the process and ran the risk of a currency collapse

Most rational individuals agree that these attempts to obfuscate the truth are one possible explanation for why the United States is currently facing the financial, moral, and constitutional crisis that she currently faces. Instead of standing up to their oppressive government and re-claiming their constitutional rights as natural persons under the law, these ill-informed apologists waste everyone's time by pushing aggressively biased and ill-informed points of view and completely distorting the fundamental principle of neutral point of view expounded by Wikipedia. Those who forget the sins of the past are destined to repeat them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiterata (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The big issue with that is WP:OR. Narson (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you really need to be told what's wrong with the above? It's totally uncited to start with.

• "widely acknowledged by most historians" - by who exactly?
• "apologists" - hardly a neutral term
• "Most rational individuals agree" - meaning if you disagree with what I'm saying; you're irrational.

And the rest of the paragraph is simply irrelevant personal opinon and an POV attempt to tie historical events to current events. There is maybe room for a section on notable historians differing views on "who won", with cites and a balanced coverage of both sides. But what you have there isn't even close to that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So if I strip out any personal opinion and back up the assertions with reliable sources, then you will allow me to include it? Let me know and I would be happy to clean it up here on Talk before editing the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiterata (talk • contribs) 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's for consensus to decide. But it would be misleading to just add what you want to add. Clearly there is differing opinions on the matter, so it would not neutral to just cover one side of the debate. What you must do is put your personal opinions aside and produce a balanced paragraph that presents all notable opinions (with equally strong cites), and then lets the reader decide. The article itself goes some way to helping the reader reach an informed conclusion, so all that needs done is a short section to show how the interpretation of the end result is disputed. A look at the history of this page suggests you may find getting consensus problematic. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems there, one being for every point that you bring up, and they are all correct by the way, you can bring up counterpoints that are at least as ugly and irrefutable. This isn't a war that lends itself to a victor very easy and I have looked at this from many directions. The fact remains that in the end both powers had simply had enough, ie when the talks at Ghent were about the break down the current prime minister made it very clear to the King's negociators just how much an end to the war was desired. It rather undercuts everything. As for portions of Maine being taken, it should be remembered that there was a ship in every port for the express purpose of moving the occupying troops out of the port if serious opposition was encountered. Nothing about this war is clean or easy, and any attempt to tie it into issues of the present day is down right silly. Tirronan (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a many good times. If you’re trying to make changes to this article don't even mention who one the war. Mainly because Wikipedia is not neutral and never will be. Britain clearly won a military victory in the War of 1812; it’s just as clear as the solid fact America lost the Vietnam War, and yet they deny it to the point of making them selves look foolish and rather childish, often getting very aggressive with these sorts of arguments. So just drop it, there’s no point in bring up these points in the name of truth because American Editors which rule this article will never let the truth through because frankly, they can't comply with Wikipedia neutrality rule.(88.111.102.70 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

I guess you just can't win, I suspect that the fact that the British lost Champlain, Baltimore, that no signifigent trade took place without a strong escort, that the fact that insurance rates were higher on the Brits than at the beginning, that everytime a Brit expidition hit US soil that the desertion rate went rampent all are not of even the slightest interest to you in your POV flogging, or the fact that only half the facts were brought up, or the fact of the most active editors here only one... myself... is an American, and by the way probably the only one that will state "I think we lost that one". However, what I think isn't important what the historians think is and the vast majority seem to think otherwise, and if challenged to prove that the British Empire won I would fail just like everyone else for the same reason... Great Britain herself didn't think she could win and its in writing by several promiment citizens of the UK by the way. If you want to accuse anyone of bais to a bit of research beyond what you "think is right". Tirronan (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Any more of this and the whole deal goes to who won the war. Tirronan (talk)

Any more of Tirronan's high handed and dictatorial control freakery and we are going to have to explain to him that Wikipedia depends on consensus. You are in a minority Tirronan. Careful analysis of the discussion pages shows that overwhelmingly this war as viewed as a British victory. Feel free to suppress free speech and hide this discussion, but be warned that truth lovers will revert it.

~~ Bully Hunter~~ 28th July 2008

Oh! By the way Tirronan, 'expidition' should be 'expedition', 'everytime' should be 'every time', 'rampent' should be 'rampant', 'signifigent' should be 'significant' etc.

If I were you I would spend little more time learning basic literacy, and spend a little less time trying to force your views on others.

~~Bully Exposer~~ 28th July 2008

If I were you I would spend a bit more time studying the archives for those rare gems of consensus that have actually indicated any sort of majority at all. One of these was a decision to confine "who won the war" discussions" to the subpage reserved for exactly such discussion. This also happens to be exactly what Tirronan is seeking to comply with and which you seem to be seeking to violate in the name of "overwhelming consensus". There's a word for this kind of situation.Zebulin (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to recall Winston Curchill's quote on this war. I think it is "In the War of 1812, nothing was gained, nothing was lost, but the friendship that has followed, has been long and lasting." People are very quick to bring up that the Americans failed to invade Canada, but what about the British attempt to invade New York? The British attempt to take Louisiana? The British attempt to take Maryland? I wouldn't call those military successes. I personally believe that no one won this war, but, you could argue either way and make valid points. This argument is not going to get anywhere, in Canadian schools you are taught that the British won the war, the American schools that the Americans won the war. This is clearly more than just a dispute between a couple of editors on wikipedia. My suggestion is, that we leave it be, and drop this argument. Red4tribe (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the great things about this war is that you can find "expert" opinions to fit just about any position you want to take on this war, one of the worst things too. All in all it has been a distraction to improving the article. For all the ranting there isn't a thing here that makes a case for or against that is convincing. Even the war aims were vague at best. There isn't much of a chance to "prove" anything. But to hit the nail on the head for every victory in this war on either side you find a out right embarrasing defeat. It gets really hard to declare a British victory, though I still think it was, when you hold transcripts, stripped of 19th century politeness, to the effect of "Get us the hell out of this war!". I urge everyone to read up on the other side of the lake for British reactions to the war as it dragged on. I really didn't understand until I did that this was a war both sides were throughly sick of. Tirronan (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was war weariness in general, just to make the point Tir. People seem to be looking at the 1812 as a war in its own right rather than as part of the Napoleonic Wars, so forget Britain had been at war for 20 years in 1815. I think if people remembered that, they might stop arguing for a British victory and realise that the Britain of the time was just too tired to give a shit. Narson (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its pretty clear on the American side it was a war they didn't want, didn't think they could really win, and was entered into with absolute dread. In some ways this is one of the weirdest wars I've really studied. It is only when the British started shipping over 1st class troops... that America started winning land battles... The British Navy did everything expected of it... just 18 months late. The Americans wanted to win in Canada and yet not once really offered a supply chain that would take its army more than 100 miles from any entry point? Cockburn was so brillient an Admiral that he overruled Packingham and got 2000 troops mangled... its just a flat assed weird war. I just wish more people could celebrate it for what it was, a fairly bloodless war that had sweeping political changes for 3 countries that far out weighed the war itself, it is that which makes this such a fasinating war. Tirronan (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum.

'Status quo ante bellum' does not describe the outcome of this war. Americans may have noticed that at the start of the war they had a White House and at the end they didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.13.95 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then what's that big building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

The British didn't get Baltimore, however. The Cheseapeake campaign was a successful raid, but nothing more.GABaker (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this goes to the who won the war section please take that discussion there. --Tirronan (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved here. Sunray (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

More Digiteria

The article was blocked because some editors have great difficulty admitting that the United States lost the War of 1812. There really is no room for debate on this. Any arguments about 'ongoing discussion' or 'heated debate' distract from the fact that by all objective measures, America was crippled by this war and desperately sought an end to the damage it had inflicted. America lost and some people would rather that not be included in this entry. There you have your answer.

For those in need of a brief history lesson, in June of 1812 the United States declared war on the United Kingdom. By August they attempted and botched an attack on Canada, then a colony of the UK. This was followed in October by a second attempted invasion and second defeat by the Americans. Over the course of the war, the United States lost over 2,000 soldiers to England's 1,600 - representing a proportionately much greater blow to the Americans than the British. In 1814 Canadian soldiers under the British flag counter-attacked by invading Washington, and burning the capitol to the ground. By this time the British blockade of the Atlantic had reduced American international trade to a trickle and the United States economy was at a virtual standstill. Finally by 1814, the United States having taken about as much of a beating as they could handle negotiated a peace treaty (i.e. surrender), though it wasn't until 1815 that the finals shots were fired in the war.

The United States lost the war of 1812. Shame we aren't big enough to admit it.

70.83.154.14 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (Previously unsigned comment from Digiterata (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

The problem with referring to the burning of DC is that its fails to consider that DC had a population of 24,000 in 1810 in a country where most power still remained in the individual states (see Caleb Strong). NYC-96,373, Philadelphia 53,722, Baltimore 46,555, Boston 33,787. DC was a contrived city, built as the result of political compromise. At the time it wasn't the financial or cultural center of the country and wasn't even particularly liked. The concept of being an 'American' still hadn't fully developed. Many still referred to themselves as Virginians, etc. - note how the results of Bladensburg did not compel Madison to sue for peace. To show the relative insignifigance of DC, the Capitol Building wasn't even completed until 1868.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.31.248 (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Impressment stopped

The comment below was originally added to Talk:War of 1812#Who won the war. Since assertions regarding who won the war should be added here, I've moved the comment. JEdgarFreeman (talk • contribs)

The British stopped impressing American sailors.--Conor Fallon (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

US bias in this article

As the current situation appears to be that Canadian and British Historians see this as a Canadian/British Victory, and US historians see this as a draw (Americans do not see it as a draw, not after Lake Champlain and New Orleans), I suggest that the results indicate this current state. The present results indicate that it is a draw, this is clearly US bias in writing. The US sees it as a draw, Canada sees it as a victory for them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a British or Canadian historian who thinks it was a victory for their side? EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also: Take it to the subpage. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly EDjohnston while there has not been much written by British authors on this war (they were busy with some guy called Napoloen at the time), not suprisingly, British authors tend to indicate that the War of 1812 was a war of conquest by the US, which it lost. The older ones indicate victory for Britain "The Canadian War of 1812" by Sir Charles Prestwood Lucas, and "How Canada was Held for the Empire:The Story of the War of 1812" by James Hannay. More recently "1812 War with America" by Jon Latimer also indicates that the war was a British Victory.

So British Books on 1812 say British Victory. American books on war of 1812 say it was a draw. The bias here is that the article says it was a draw - which is the American view of the war, not British or Canadian. And on top of this, Politicians in the UK at the time, according to Hansard, viewed it as a victory. Narson, we are discussing bias here, not debating who won the war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead of the present article lead does not contain the words 'victory' or 'draw'. All it has to say about the direct result of the war is this nicely-balanced passage:

During the course of the war, both the Americans and British launched invasions of each other's territory across this frontier, most of which were unsuccessful or gained only temporary success. At the end of the war, the British held parts of Maine and some outposts in the sparsely populated West while the Americans held Canadian territory near Detroit, but all occupied territories were restored at the end of the war.

Is there anything in that summary that in your opinion, is either (a) factually wrong, or (b) reflects US bias? EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some British and Canadian writers who do not view the war as a British victory.

British writer Paul Johnson in A History of the American People stated that as a result of the treaty neither side could declare "a success or a defeat."

Canadian Duncan Andrew Campbell in Unlikely Allies: Britain, America and The Victorian Origins of The Special Relationship writes that the war was a stalemate.

Briton Kenneth Bourne in Britain and The Balance of Power in North America, 1815-1908 stated that as a result of the war "neither side could claim substantial victory."

British scholar H. C. Allen in Great Britain and The United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations (1783-1952) argues that it was a stalemate.

Canadian historian Reginald C. Stuart in United States Expansionism and British North America, 1775-1871 does not declare a victor and leaves the clear impression it was a draw. Dwalrus (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Dwalrus, we were discussing British books specifically on the war of 1812, as opposed to general history works. As far as I'm aware, British historians that have researched the war of 1812 and written books on it specifically see it as a British Victory.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I do not have a problem with the lead para EDJohnston. However the "results" section says "status quo ante bellem". Certainly this is US bias, books on the War of 1812 written by British historians do not see the results as a return to the "status quo" (ie a stalemate). They see the results of the war as a British victory, as the invasion of Canada was repulsed. The word stalemate appears in the article at various points, most importantly in the section "Terms of the treaty of Ghent" - it says "thus, the war ended in a stalemate with no gain for either side". The British historians would seem to be saying that the successful defense of Canada was a gain! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, please give examples of British history books that contain the text string 'British victory' or a reasonable equivalent. If you want to check James Hannay's book, it is available on line. Perhaps you can find 'British victory' there, and then quote us the page number. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, Paul Johnson's work is the only true general history. All of the others deal intensively with US/British relations. They have done research on this time period. The fact is that there are several Canadian and British historians who see this war as a stalemate regardless of whether or not you are able to admit it. I should have added Christopher T. George who is from Britain, now living in the US, who wrote Terror of the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay. He also believes it was a stalemate. By the way, James Hannay was Canadian not British. Dwalrus (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dwalrus, the fact is none of these books are specifically on the war of 1812. And the British writers that have have enough expertise to have written a book on the war of 1812 have come to the conclusion that it was a British victory. It is actually not important whether it is a British or US victory. It is important that there are two divergent opinions, and they should both be recognised, rather than just the pro US biased one which you are advocating. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Having the result as a "stalemate" clearly reflects the viewpoint of the US. A valid point about James Hanny not being British, there is another British author by that name and I assumed it was him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

¶ I understand Deathlibrarian's point. But I think that the infobox is just trying to give the uninterpreted, unmediated, undisputed results: that in terms of territory, population, jurisdiction, reparations or security, the nations involved had indeed returned to the status quo ante bellum when signing the Treaty of Ghent. It may very well be true that returning to such a status quo is in fact a victory for one side in resisting and turning back possible invasion by the other, but that question is covered in the text. For a rough parallel, I think that Spain and England returned essentially to a status quo after 1588 (the defeat of the Armada), which would indeed be the correct entry for that subject's information box, at the very same time that few on either side would deny that it was a victory for England & Elizabeth I and a defeat for Spain & Philip II. And it's important to put it in such simple terms to contrast its results with those of most such struggles (e.g. Wars of Independence, the Mexican-American War, the Franco-Prussian War or World War One), which do include significant changes in territory, finance, sovereignty or policy. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC).......

The infobox should reflect the text, not differentiate from it, or add some weird spin. Ok, as shakescene has brought them up, lets compare it to other examples of failed invasions so I can highlight the bias. ..you gave the example of the Spanish Armada, where the status Quo was returned. The result in that wiki infobox is "Decisive Anglo-Dutch victory". Similiarly, the Korean war. The Korean War generally returned to the status Quo, but the result is "North Korean Invasion repelled" (Amongst other things). Here is the bias.

• So with the Korean war, a North Korean invasion is repelled - result is "North Korean Invasion repelled"
• With the Spanish Armada, Spanish invasion is repelled - result is "Decisive Anglo-Dutch victory"
• War of 1812, Invasion of Canada is repelled - result is "Status Quo Ante Bellum".

Anyone seeing a difference in the way these results are written here? Particularly, anyone from Britain or Canada? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I still have British citizenship although I've lived in the U.S. since 1960 (and sincerely and wholeheartedly promised several times to defend the Constitution of the U.S.) I usually root for the British or Commonwealth side in an athletic contest with the U.S. (Norman Tebbit's "cricket test"). So I'm not biased in favour of the U.S. or against either Britain or Canada. In the cases you cite, I'd prefer to put status quo ante bellum in the Infobox since that's what the two sides reverted to (e.g. the 38th parallel wasn't moved after 1954.) A blood-consuming war is very far from a sporting event, but purely for purposes of analogy in Wikipedia practice: when one side of a game is overwhelmingly overmatched and yet still manages a tie, the underdog has won a huge moral victory and the favourite has lost enormous prestige, yet the scoreboard still reads 1-1 or 0-0, and that's what should go into the infobox. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess two things here - while its interesting that you suggest it, thats not really how its normally done in infoboxes. They normally indicate who was victorious. Additionally I think what you are saying is misleading. The Infobox should reflect the text. If people are scanning the page, and only look at the infobox (and don't bother to check the text in the page) and read that the result of the Spanish Armada was "Status Quo" thats clearly misleading - it sounds like both fleets lost equal numbers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not American, or British by the way. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Armada?--The Spanish fleet sank so that's a pretty decisive defeat. The British invasions of the US were decisively defeated in New York (1814) and Louisiana (1815) (and repelled at Baltimore 1814), so that matches US failures in Ontario. As for war goals, the war ended the Indian threat to the US west and southwest, and the outcome was reopening of trade with France and an end of impressment. So the US achieved its war goals. The Brits' main war goal was to defeat Napoleon and they achieved that too. Rjensen (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen, we are not actually here to debate who won or lost, our personal opinions are not relevant. It is pointless as US wikipedia authors will say one thing and British/Australian/Canadian will say another. The point is that British Historians writing about the war believe they won it, and US authors writing about the war believe it was a draw. The page should reflect both those opinions, not just the US historians opinion's that it was a stalemate. I'm sure you can see its only fair that the page reflects the International opinion, not just that of the US. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I have put a POV tag on the article while the inclusion of British Historian's viewpoint is being discussed Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The only recent British historian is Latimer (2007), and he says the British did not consider it a victory. He quotes Wellington (late 1814) on "the want of success in America" (p 390) and notes the British "failures" in 1814 (and the heavy cost) was "a sufficient inducement to settle for peace." (p 389) Rjensen (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A slew of history books were provided saying it is a 'draw' or such were provided up above, your complaint is they are General Histories and you have provided, that I've seen, 0 history books saying anything. Can we have some names here? Books? Something more than vague assertions? (And while we are on assertions, please stop telling us how British Wikipedians think, I assure you, we are not sheep). --Narson ~ Talk • 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian has been making misleading claims. He mentions British historian Charles Prestwood Lucas as claiming victory for the British. That is false. Lucas said: "It was a war between kindred peoples, which brought no immediate profit and little credit to either, and which apparently had no result whatever — for the combatants ended as they had begun."online p. 255 Deathlibrarian also cited Hannay as a British historian. He was a Canadian journalist from New Brunswick and a popular historian circa 1905. Rjensen (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, my apolgies he had cited a couple of chaps at the start there. Well, can't say I'm overly convinced. We say status quo ante bellum, and do so without prejudice (We don't say if that conforms to anyone's war aims etc), which is the right course I think. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Already stated about Hannay, there are two Hannay's writing around this time, one British, the other Canadian. So apologies for my confusion. As for Lucas, Rjensen himself is in fact not representing the whole picture about Lucas. Lucas's main message is that while the British certinaly didn't achieve great military feats, the main result of the war was victory for Canada, in repelling the invasion and asserting itself. He states, definitely, that the US failed miserably. If you tie this in with Latimer, and certain Canadian writers, as well as the general thoughts within Canadian current thinking, and the thoughts of British Politicians at the time, there is two divergent streams of thought about the War of 1812, here, clearly. One clearly in the US camp that it was a stalemate, and one British (Canadian) biased that it was a Victory for Canada. Both schools of thought on the war need to be addressed, to remove US bias. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A historian seriously said it was a victory for a country that didn't even exist? Troubling. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

-) Please, I'll post the excerpt for you below, Lucas even calls it the "National War of Canada". Lord Lucas's's book is on the Internet Archive in text version, quite a good read, but some regard it as too pro British. I ordered it before I realised it was available free online...doh! Link here: http://www.archive.org/stream/canadianwar02lucagoog/canadianwar02lucagoog_djvu.txt - Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"It was this failure of men who had once been citizens of the British Empire to subdue other British colonists lining their frontier and facing their settlements, that makes this war one of first-rate importance to those who study colonial history. The war was the national war of Canada* It did more than any other event or series of events could have done to reconcile the two rival races within Canada to each other. It was at once the supplement and the corrective of the American War of Independence. It did more than any other event could have done to demonstrate that colonial liberty and colonial patriotism did not leave the British Empire when the United States left it. The same spirit which had inspired and carried to success the American War of Independence was now enlisted on the side of Great Britain, and the successful defence of Canada by regiments from Great Britain and Canadian colonists combined, meant that a new British Empfre was coming into being pari passu with the growth of a young nation within its limits. The war of 1812 determined that North America should not exclusively belong to the American.." Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

In response to RJensen, I don't have Latimer's book (yet), but it seems that he regards it as a British Victory, according to the book being discussed in these reviews:

• "it started with an American invasion of that country – to ‘liberate’ it, naturally. (‘We will “conquer but to save”.’) So from the point of view of the Canadians, who didn’t want to be saved, it was far from pointless. That’s why Jon Latimer regards it on balance as a British victory." http://www.lrbshop.co.uk/1812_3874.html
• "The one lasting result of the war was in Canada, where the British victory eliminated the threat of American conquest, and set Canadians on the road toward confederation."

http://www.newsfromnowhere.org.uk/books/DisplayBookInfo.php?ISBN=9780674025844

• "But the power of the latter squeezed America's trade to a standstill, and was crowned with the destruction of Washington by British troops in 1814. In restoring the status quo in 1815, peace represented victory for Britain."

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/books/latimer.jon/1812.shtml Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Deathlibrarian hasn't found much evidence that British historians have a consensus that the war a victory over Americans. He cites three historians--one was Canadian and one called it a draw. Latimer, the third, says getting the status quo in 1815 was a victory for British diplomacy in the sense that it did not lose anything more, but Latimer makes it clear the British considered the war useless and not a victory over the Americans. Webster for example makes clear the British did not want to even try for a victory. Castlereagh defended the treaty of Ghent, saying "If the British Government had listened to popular sentiment we still should have been at war with America in pursuit of an object not essential to our honour, and too dearly purchased, even if accomplished, by a protracted war." [The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh, 1812-1815 Britain and the Reconstruction of Europe by C. K. Webster London. 1931. Page 382]. Actually the British emphasize the need for good relations with the US and the uselessness of continuing a war.Rjensen (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted, its appears pretty clear that Latimer considered it a British Victory (well the three reviews seem to thing so!!). Lucas wrote that the US failed and the main thing that came out of the war was that it was "the national war of Canada", and the "the successful defence of Canada by regiments from Great Britain and Canadian colonists combined, meant that a new British Empfre was coming into being pari passu with the growth of a young nation within its limits. The war of 1812 determined that North America should not exclusively belong to the American". These two are the only books written by Brits on the war of 1812, presumably there are Canadian books that support the British viewpoint as well. There are probably 100 books written by Americans on the war of 1812 that say that the US won, or it was a draw. Two books written by Brits that say that the War was a victory for Canada. Despite the numbers, my point stands, there is a divergence between the two countries, and certainly most Canadians believe it was a victory for them, while Americans argue that it was in fact a draw, or a victory for them. Lets get rid of the nationalistic bias in case in this article, please, and reflect both sides. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The attempt here as I understand it is to say that based on the view of the majority of British/Canadian historians is that the war was a British victory and would show us 3 that do so. We follow by disallowing British/Canadian historians that don't support this view. Then we have the problem with Wellington and his Prime Minister that were both convinced that nothing would be achived on this front no matter what was done *with letters to that effect* available to the public. At the time no one was impressed with either sides military efforts and successes as they amounted to 3 years of bumbling, fumbling, and little or no substansive territorial gain. The PM ordered his negoiators to get a peace in no uncertain terms citing the public's weariness of the war. The US was at least as driven to reach a peace treaty. Any attempt to claim victory is undermined when both sides are frantic to reach an accord and willing to give away concessions and territorial claims to get it which both did if only by silence. This is a strange war which makes it fasinating, but a draw it should remain. The is much more to this war than who won or lost. Death, this is again another excuse to "who won the war" under other pretenses and we both know it and I for one resent you using a back door to attempt once again to get your way. Tirronan (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Disputed Neutrality" tag should be removed from the article forthwith. Several years patient editing have gone into making the article as factual and neutral as possible, while discussing or at least mentioning in passing all areas of reasonable academic dispute or uncertainty. Now, it is being insisted that the article is not neutral because it does not include a POV claim in the info box. This goes against concensus (both academic and Wikipedia). HLGallon (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian's views don't seem to have consensus, since I haven't noticed anyone supporting him in this discussion. He seems to have put Jon Latimer's book down in the 'British victory' column, though he hasn't actually seen the book, but is only relying on reviews. Anyone who supports the 'British victory' thesis has a heavy burden, since they have to explain why the British chose to sign the peace agreement. The Canadians were happy that they survived, the Americans were happy because of the Battle of New Orleans, the British were happy because they beat Napoleon and did not lose Canada. Accounting for why people are happy is beyond the scope of this discussion. The end of the war seems to be a win-win situation for several of the parties. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is not neutral because it does include a POV claim in the info box - that is the US viewpoint that the war was a stalemate. It seems that the viewpoint of the British Authors and Canadians hasn't traditionally been noted in this article because it doesn't have any British Wikipedia authors looking at it. From what I understand, Canada sees this as a Canadian victory. This is even in evidence by the fact that they recently installed a sculpture that indicates this. This article (linked below) talks about how Canada sees it as victory, where across the border, it is seen as a victory for the US. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/11/03/coupland-statue-tweaks-u-s-noses.aspx. In my opionion, this article has always been biased. The viewpoints of the American indians are not represented at all, the views of the French Canadians, and the threat to Catholicism. The assumption that the British were arming hostile Indians: from the viewpoint of the British, they were protecting the Indians from the settlers (and there is the argument that the arming of the indians was simply trade). Indeed, one of the aims of the Treaty of Ghent sought by the British was to ensure that protection. The British also saw it as their legal right to retrieve their desertng sailors. I have had to insert British views, and they have been constantly removed. The two British books on 1812, Latimer's view and Lucas's viewpoints, are being ignored - that they saw it as a victory for Canada, as I have noted, as do many Canadians today. If the bias continues in this article unaddressed, I will endeavour to try to take this further. There needs to be more to Wikipedia than the US viewpoint which dominates this article. I have reinserted the NPOV note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the tag. For what it is worth, I am a British Wikipedian. I am not here to trumpet any claim to victory; I am here to contribute to an article, hoping to make it as well-documented, comprehensive and readable as possible. The claim of stalemate is not US POV; it is the concensus of British and American authors, and Canadian authors also (Grave, Hitsman, Malcomson). The concensus among Wikipedians for this article is clear; there is no concensus that this article is in any way biased. HLGallon (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I am happy for your contribution (as a Brit), and won't be replacing the NPOV tag, I still believe this article to be biased, and not representing the views of Canada, and many Canadian and British Historians. I guess from this point I will have to look at the arbitration process (which I haven't done before). I would rather look at that than feel there was a biased article about. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If I understand Arbitration, that's for disputes about behavio(u)r, and compared with the tone of most of the extended and difficult disputes I've seen, the tone in this one has been quite civil and civilized/civilised. That doesn't mean that the participants haven't been a bit frustrated and impatient at times, but almost all of them on all sides have tried to listen to each other and respond in a mature, civil and respectful way, without getting into comments about personality or motive.

I think that on past practice, the Arbitrators would decline to take a case about this question and label it a "content dispute" that we have to resolve among ourselves. For an example of the kind of thing that invokes Arbitration see the "Reports on Lengthy Litigation" in Wikipedia Signpost or the WP:Requests for arbitration. The latter page also suggests several other ways of mediating or resolving disputes.

As for your assertion that omitting a purported victor or loser from the Infobox is the same thing as showing bias towards the U.S., I just can't accept it. Status quo ante bellum and the Treaty of Ghent are the bare historical facts that no one can dispute, rather than an endorsement of some historians' view that 1815 was a "stalemate". Apparently I'm not alone in sharing this view, among editors who have no pre-disposed cause to vindicate the Yanks or to diparage the Brits and Canadians.

Perhaps we can add an additional "Effects" line to the Infobox, just to indicate to readers that opinions differ as to the long-term effects (not a listing of different opinions, just a couple of words like "still debated"). I'm still waiting to see the ultimate effects of the Korean War (1950-54). —— Shakescene (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I finally found the Arb Request example I was seeking for a sharp contrast with the tone of our own present disagreements: it's WP:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Death, the problem is that there just isn't much evidence for anything but where the info box is right now. I honestly don't have a problem with a statement to the effect that Canadians see it as a victory and I thought there was a statement to that effect and if there is not there should be. However anything that states this was a military victory by either side is going to have to require proof and that is not possible to my knowledge. Every victory on either side was followed shortly by a defeat, you have a burning of Washington, followed by the repulse at Baltimore. On the Canadian border you get victory/failure all through the campaigns, and land in Maine was balanced by land above Detroit. On the political front again there is nothing to claim some huge victory or even a narrow one. The editors here are both American and British. The aftermath would be both more accurate and interesting as it really does show how this war really leads to a victory by all 3 countries in the long haul. However I honestly don't see that anything here is writen to a POV, where a victory is won it is stated as such by either side. I am assuming that what you are after is a Canadian Victory in the info box and I just can't see a way that can happen. Tirronan (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So, there are few Canadian historians argue that this was a victory for Canada? What a surprise that a perpetually self conscious country can't produce historians to argue it's own perspective, but instead produces a bunch of self-impressed pretentious snobs who are 'above' petty Nationalism. Look up a Canadian history book, and while it will always focus on Canada or Canadians in particular, they almost never rock the boat of popular world history. American consensus, when it's mentioned at all, is either a victory for America, or a draw. Not wanting to get into an argument, our own historians will settle for a draw. I know some of you are probably laughing at the thought, but I guarantee, many Canadian historians will first look at the Canadian situation, and then, as he is self conscious of Canada's importance within the world, he looks at the larger global impact. This applies superbly to the War of 1812. The Canadian perspective(ask any Canadian here), Canada won. Look at a textbook, the conclusion? A draw, just because the rest of the world says so. So not only are our historians afraid of Canada's lack of influence in the world, they are inevitably afraid of having bias. And nothing could be more irrelevant then a Canadian bias. Except maybe to everyday Canadians. The effect? Even in our own history books, we are a side-note. So why the disconnect? Why are our scholars not allowed to tell our history for what we want it to be every now and then? Every other country on earth is guilty of this, but maybe that's why Canadians in general don't study their own history, they have a hard time finding shamelessly populist books that argue their simplistic perspective. I'm not trying to be judgmental, its just sometimes its nice to go 'Ra Ra Ra' every now and then.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.11.237 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually you can find American Historians that agree with you, not many but they are there. However the majority are in the Draw category and unless there is some revelation that I don't know about this will continue to be one of those war with an aftermath more important than the war won/loss column. One can trace a direct line from the effects of the 1812 war to Canadian Dominion for crying out loud. America won unrestricted access all the way to California, and Britain could concentrate on all the can of worms that was Europe till the aftermath of WW2 and expanding her empire to good effect. I don't think it was a draw at all, but that all three countries gained a great deal out of the war. Personally I will continue to believe that the country that felt compelled to begin peace negotiations lost, and that would be the US and I am an American, but even that weak argument falls flat on it's face when the other side was willing to do so much to secure a peace as well. There is simply no where to go on this one and all the beating of heads in the world will not change the fact that as far as military operations went, this was a folly that began bad and never really got better. Let me leave you with this sterling example: Scott led a victorious attack on British lines driving them from the field, both he and his commander were both wounded, The subordinates gathered around and after a discussion decided that leaving the field (for no reason whatsoever) was the better course and returned to base... the Brits showed up to find an empty battlefield and thus won. So ended one of the last campaigns in Canada by America... it was in microcosm the Canadian campaigns in the war of 1812. That a good General (Packingham) lost is life because of an arrogant Admiral just was a bitter note to a damned silly war. --Tirronan (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, that is not whats being argued here. The issue is not, WAS it a draw, but in whose opinion was it a draw. The Canadian's population saw it as a great victory. The American perspective was that it was a draw. The site lists it as a draw, hence the Canadian perspective is ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.11.237 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again you can't put opinion in an info box though we can certainly put that statement in the article. --Tirronan (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say (again). An Information Box gives the bare details, such as the Treaty of Ghent and the fact that in purely formal terms, the status quo ante bellum (except, perhaps from the point of view of the Iriquois, Mohawks, Seminoles and other North American Indians) was returned to. An infobox about a politician might indicate the elections won and lost, but it (as opposed to an article's text) can't say that he or she was (or wasn't) a successful (winning) politician. Many think that George W. Bush and/or James Buchanan were unsuccessful (even disastrous) U.S. Presidents, but a discussion of that is something for the text, not the Infobox. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The US populations opinion in the decades immediately following the war was not that the war was a draw. That was not the American perspective at all. Rather the population overwhelmingly viewed it as decisive victory for the US. This gave considerable trouble to US statesmen of the 19th century who had to deal with a grossly inflated view of US military prowess on the part of the voting population. It would have been very difficult to find an american in the 1800's who would not have believed that the US had won every war it had ever fought. This distorted perception was evident before the war of 1812 as well but exaggerated popular accounts of the battle of new orleans served to reinforce this distortion. As to educated statemen and historians I doubt it would have been easy to identify a clear division into Canadian and American perspectives.Zebulin (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my rude response last time Tirronan, don't know why I phrased things that way. Coming back to this, I agree, it's all a rather pointless argument. I will say though, if the Canadian theatre was considered a separate conflict within the War of 1812 (not unreasonable considering the unique conditions it provided; ie The US was effectively the super power), I think you could make a very strong case that the status quo was a great victory for the British/Colonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.35.209 (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

US the "superpower"??? -- Not if you note Prevost's large-scale invasion of New York in 1814, using highly experienced veterans of the Napaoleonic campaigns, and greatly outnumbering the Americans. He was defeated, and Prevost retreated (and got a court martial for his humiliation of British forces). A major British defeat as the war ended--not to mention New Orleans. Rjensen (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While the northern front of the war was clearly the main theater, I'm not in agreement that it can be viewed separately. However, I am in agreement with the view that the war was a British/Canadian victory. The prominent U.S. historian Donald Hickey sees it as a British/Canadian victory in his most recent book Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812. As for the claim that the US was a “super power,” I believe that claim could not be further from the truth. Among the many writers that have pointed out just how militarily weak the U.S. was are J. C. A. Stagg, Donald Hickey, and, most recently, Jon Latimer. Dwalrus (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The British won more battles and took fewer casualties, therefore it should be considered a tactical British success. --SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)