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) |
Talk:War of 1812#Historians and Canadian viewpoint that the war was not a stalemate
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.
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.
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)
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 WordsmithCommunicate 00:42, 16 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 WordsmithCommunicate 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:58, 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)
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)
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)
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)
talk:Tirronan|talk]]) 03:26, 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)
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)
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 WordsmithCommunicate 03:17, 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 WordsmithCommunicate 20:44, 27 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 WordsmithCommunicate 01:25, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
RJensen, thanks for the citation.I will include that.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
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)
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)
—— Shakescene (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
—— Shakescene (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2009 (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. 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.] [4]
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)
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)
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.] [5]
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.[6]
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. [7]
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.[8]
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)
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.[9] —— 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)
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)
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.] [10]
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.[11]
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. [12]
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.[13]
—— Shakescene (talk) 04:40, 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)
¶ 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)
"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)
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)
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.] [14]
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.[15]
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.[16]
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",[17] (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.[18]
References:
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)
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)
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)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.
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)
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)
—— Shakescene (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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.] [19]
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.[20]
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.[21]
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",[22] (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.[23]
References:
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)
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)
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:
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:
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)
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?
Please someone say yes so we can all go home! Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
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.] [24]
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.[25]
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.[26]
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.[27] [28]
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. [29]
Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
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.] [30]
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.[31]
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.[32]
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.[33] [34] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes! Indeed! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:15, 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.] [35]
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.[36]
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.[37]
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.[38] [39] 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",[40] (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.[41]
Footnotes:
[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)
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.] [42]
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.[43]
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.[44] [45] 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",[46] (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.[47]
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.[48]
Footnotes:
References
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 WordsmithCommunicate 08:32, 7 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)