Talk:Origins of the War of 1812

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello? Anyone here?

no--all are gone to war.

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

Contents 1 Treaty obligations 2 Suggested Merge 3 Merging 4 All in Favor Say Aye 5 Napoleon

[edit] Treaty obligations

Anyone know the importance of American failure to compensate Loyalists for seized territory and any other failed treaty obligations of the Treaty of Paris? Jztinfinity 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) what are the three most influential causes of the war of 1812?

[edit] Suggested Merge

I didn't add the merge tags but it sounds like a very good idea to me. Impressment of American Seamen is not really relevant to any other episode of history. Anyone else have a view? The Land 19:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen 20:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)bad idea to merge. impressment came many years before starte of 1812 it was issue in Jay Treaty talks in 1794 for example and involves other issues. the issue in 1812 was not exactly impressment but definition of who was a British subject USA said former Brits were no longer subject to impressment but AGREED Brits could impress their own subjects

[edit] Merging

I think that they could be merged.

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

[edit] All in Favor Say Aye

AYE! They should definitely be merged. Didn't the impressment of the sailors make Americans angrier at Britain? I would say it was one of the origins of the war. Does anyone disagree?
--Regoldberg 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Eli Goldberg

Impressment was indeed one of the causes of the 1812 war. But it was an important Britissh naval policy for many years previous and should not be hidden away in a discussion of one war out of many in which it was used. Rjensen 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

These topics should be merged. I believe impressment of the sailiors was one the major causes of the War of 1812.

I concur. Merge --CPAScott 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point. Impressment was a long-standing policy that affected lots of people besides the Americans in 1812. Merging is simply misleading and helps no one Rjensen 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a real problem with the comment about the part that discusses the Canadian 'mythology' about the war. While a different point of view, the cause of the War of 1812 as viewed in Canada is the fear of American expansionism and Manifest Destiny. This is NOT a view that has been discarded to history and was a valid fear given the stance of the War Hawk senators. The rallying cry of '54'40 or fight,' although this happened after the fact, it shows that American expansionism was not unfounded. The term 'myth' is what I have the biggest problem with - this is not a view confined to mythology. Thanks, Alex.

The pro-Empire Canadians invented the myths after the war to ween canadians away from American ideas like democracy. The myths about America wanting to annex Canada in 1812 were false as historians for 50+ years have agreed. As for 54-40-or-fight, that episode in 1840s resulted in a peaceful compromise in which the Empire got British Columbia and USA got Washington-Oregon area. This fear of American expansionism is an intereting myth--you see it in people like Will Ferguson. Maybe it's an essential myth to hold Canada together. It played that role in 1911 election, for example. Rjensen 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... no. Frankly, the "myths" about Americans wanting to annex Canada were (and are) not false, but they are misinterpreted. Americans did not want to expand into what is now Eastern Canada (NS, NB, Upper and Lower Canada), but they did want to expand into the Ohio valley (at least), and potentially into what is now Western Canada. If I am not mistaken, the Ohio region, and the Mississippi valley were part of "Canada", and under British dominion following the Treaty of Paris and the Quebec Act. They effectively blocked westward U.S. expansion. Arming the natives therein is, again, largely a bit of American mythos. How could arming natives for self-defense within their own (British-controlled) territory be viewed as agressive towards the U.S.? Thus, New England and New York, although greatly affected by impressment, were not in favour of the war, but what were then "Western" and Southern states did. Thoughts welcome. (Oh, and I concur with Rjensen that the articles should not be merged; impressment was one cause of the War of 1812 (perhaps, and at least was so-stated by one side), but it did have other consequences and merits its own article). Esseh 02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Treaty of Paris 1783 gave the Ohio Valley to the US, and after the Jay Treaty of 1795 the British finally removed some of their forts. The British were arming Indians in Ohio-Indiana-Illinois-Michigan-Wisconsin region, which was part of USA. Rjensen 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon

"Napoleon had no intention of honoring promise: Hickey, p. 22; Horsman, p. 188."

Fine, it's sourced, but it could be desirable to add some more explanations as to how Hickey and Horsman were able to guess what Napoleon's intentions were. --Anonymous44 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)