Talk:Results of the War of 1812

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merger Discussion

Separating the "Results" section from the War article doesn't make sense to me... I would opine that the "Results" article should instead be incorporated into the "War" article. Should there be a separate "Results" article for each and every "War" article? - CHC 6 Aug 2006


MERGE - should be merged but at least a paragraph summary should remain in the War of 1812 article. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support --taras 03:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not vote. As long as there are no substantive objections I think we should go forward with the merge.—thames 22:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this going to be moved at all? because it needs to be. As noted below alot of the text is substrated directly from the 'references'. It either needs to be moved or be put up as NPOV / WP:Cleanup. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Support --chrisgeorge 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Support with attention to the copyright issue raised below. -- Alarob 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hard to see why there should be two separate articles one which includes a section on "Results" of the war and the other one "Consequences." It would seem to me to make more sense to have all together in one place, so I vote to merge them.

Hard to see why they wouldnt be together. Who came up with that?

chris id just like to point out somthing i think that should be changes "The United States had faced near disaster in 1814, but the victories at the Battle of New Orleans" new orleans was fough after the peace treaty

Done Civil Engineer III 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringements?

It looks to me that the references for this article are NOT just references - entire paragraphs have been copied from several of them --JimWae 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Indian section

The section provides an extremely distorted, if not racist, description of American relations with First Nations. It contains three references to "Indian threats" when these "threats" may not have existed and if they did, it would have been Native people defending their land from encroachment.

It also makes the incorrect statement that most Indians were "removed from the Great Lakes region." In fact, many Native Americans continue to live around the Great Lakes on and off reservations in the United States and reserves in Canada. While it would be correct to say they were moved to reserves/reservations in the region, it is wrong to say most were removed from the region.Tingkai 10:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

does Tingkai think the Indian threats existed, or did they not exist and were a figment of the imagination? Rjensen 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly an Indian threat to the security of the frontier areas did exist. Whether the Indians were justified in their motives is not the point in this case, since the statement refers to a strategic rather than moral issue. But the article is definitely wrong in saying that the War of 1812 ended it.

"In the treaty the British promised not to arm the Indians in the U.S. from Canada (nor even trade with them), and the U.S.-Canada border was largely pacified. However, some Americans assumed that the British continued to conspire with their former Indian allies in an attempt to forestall U.S. hegemony in the Great Lakes region. Such perceptions were faulty, argues Calloway (1987). After the Treaty of Ghent, the Indians became an undesirable burden to British policymakers. They now looked to North America for markets and raw materials. British agents in the field continued to meet regularly with their former Indian partners, but they did not supply arms or encouragement for Indian campaigns to stop American expansionism."

The latter statement flies in the face of history, ignores the roots of the first Seminole War, and should be deleted. Whether the conflict over the Indian problem "became an undesirable burden to British policymakers" is not the point in this case, any more than whether or not the Indians had the moral high ground. Both may be true, but they do not justify the latter statement, which ignores the fact that the British did continue to try to stop American expansionism with Indians and runaway slaves after the war was over. That they did this indirectly and perhaps without universal popularity among British policymakers is not the point.Shield2 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

after 1815 the British government had little to do with the Seminoles of Florida (Florida belonged to Spain). Of course Florida was nowhere near Canada Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sacking of Washington?

Why no mention of the sacking of Washington? The burning of the White House? or the American loss at Bladensburg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.106.90 (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

it was easy to rebuild the government buildings; and paint the presidential mansion White. America knew all about losing its national capital--the Brits did it several times in 1777-8. Rjensen 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the course of events? Many battles have taken place over the centuries, should we then just list one article "War" and say "A bunch of people fought." and refer every other article back to that one?

If a truly objective article is to be reached, events should be listed as they happen. Conclusions and results are by their very nature subjective, but if you're reporting a series of events, list the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.174.177 (talk) 19:10, August 24, 2007 (UTC) Fully endorse the above complaint. As for the article itself, well, I've never before read such a pile of Whiggish, USA-centic - words do fail me. Please can we have a rewrite from NPOV? Jatrius 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph

Why is the policy of Impressment mentioned as an outcome of the war, when this was suspended prior to the war and was not an element of the Treaty of Ghent? This unduly serves to justify & portray the war in a positive light, by incorrectly claiming a positive outcome. Fehrgo 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading this, it would seem to be a simple victim of bad wording. It should be emphasized that the policy was suspended independently of the war, and that the war did not play in to this event. Fehrgo 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
impressment was NOT suspended in 1812 -- only after Napoleon was defeated in 1814. (some of the restrictions on trading with France were meant)Rjensen 08:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Secord

I removed a reference to her as an example of an otherwise uninvolved former American who supported the British in Canada as she was married to a Loyalist who was wounded by Americans earlier in the war, while her actions may have been extrordiary, the reasons for her loyalties are fairly obvious. PreciousRoi (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)