To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Treaty of Ghent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treaty of Ghent
Signing of Treaty of Ghent (1812).jpg
Signing of the Treaty of Ghent. The leading British delegate Baron Gambier is shaking hands with the American leader John Quincy Adams. The British Undersecretary of State for War and the Colonies, Henry Goulburn, is carrying a red folder.
TypeBilateral peace treaty
Signed24 December 1814 (1814-12-24)
LocationGhent, United Netherlands (now Belgium)
United Kingdom
United States

The Treaty of Ghent (8 Stat. 218) was the peace treaty that ended the War of 1812 between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Both sides signed it on December 24, 1814, in the city of Ghent, United Netherlands. The treaty restored relations between the two nations to status quo ante bellum, restoring the borders of the two countries to the lines before the war started in June 1812.[note 1][1] The treaty was approved by the UK parliament and signed into law by the Prince Regent (the future King George IV) on December 30, 1814. It took a month for news of the peace treaty to reach the United States, during which American forces under Andrew Jackson won the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815. The Treaty of Ghent was not fully in effect until it was ratified by the U.S. Senate unanimously on February 17, 1815. It began the more than two centuries of peaceful relations between the U.S. and Britain, although there were a few tense moments such as the Trent Affair in 1861.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    3 615 516
    1 505
    55 568
    204 860
    34 287
  • ✪ The War of 1812 - Crash Course US History #11
  • ✪ The Treaty of Ghent
  • ✪ War of 1812
  • ✪ American Pageant Chapter 12 APUSH Review
  • ✪ APUSH Review: War of 1812


CCUS 11 – War of 1812 Hi, I’m John Green. This is Crash Course U.S. history and today we’re gonna talk about what America’s best at: War. (Libertage.) Uh, Mr. Green, the United States has actually only declared war 5 times in the last 230 years. Oh, Me from the Past, you sniveling literalist. Well, today we’re gonna talk about America’s first declared war, the War of 1812, so called because historians are terrible at naming things. I mean, they could’ve called it the Revolutionary War Part Deux, or the Canadian Cataclysm, or the War to Facilitate Future Wars. But no. They just named it after the year it started. Intro I know this disappoints the military historians among you, but as usual we’re gonna spend more time talking about the causes and effects of the war than the actual, like, killing parts, because ultimately it’s the ambiguity of the War of 1812 that makes it so interesting. The reason most often given for the War of 1812 was the British impressment of American sailors, whereby American sailors would be kidnapped and basically forced into British servitude. This disrupted American shipping. It also seems like a reasonably obvious violation of American sovereignty, but it’s a little more complicated than that. First of all, there were many thousands of British sailors working aboard American ships, so many of the sailors that the British captured were in fact British —which gets to the larger point that citizenship at the time was a pretty slippery concept, especially on the high seas, like papers were often forged and many sailors identified their supposed American-ness through tattoos of, like, Eagles and Flags. And there were several reasons why a British sailor might want to become or pretend to be an American, including that the Brits at the time were fighting Napoleon in what historians, in their infinite creativity, called the Napoleonic Wars. And on that topic, Britain’s impressment policy allowed them both to disrupt American shipping to France and to get new British sailors to strengthen their war effort, which was annoying to the Americans on a couple levels, especially the French loving Republicans, which is a phrase that you don’t hear very often anymore. Another reason often given for the war was America’s crazy conspiratorial Anglophobia. There was even a widespread rumor that British agents were buying up Connecticut sheep in order to sabotage the textile industry! Lest you worry that America’s fascination with conspiracy theories is new. So those pushing for war were known as War Hawks, and the most famous among them was Kentucky’s Henry Clay. They took the impressment of sailors as an affront to American national honor, but they also complained that Britain’s actions were an affront to free trade, by which they meant America’s ability to trade with Europeans other than Great Britain. And, to be fair, the British WERE trying to regulate American trade. They even passed the Orders in Council, which required American ships to dock in Britain and pay tax before trading with other European nations. Britain, we were an independent nation! You can’t do that kind of stuff. We have a special relationship. It’s not that special. But the problem with saying this caused the war is that the Orders had been in effect for 5 years before the war started AND they were rescinded in 1812 before the U.S. declared war, although admittedly we didn’t know about it because it didn’t reach us until after we declared war...there was no Twitter. Another reason for the war was Canada. That’s right, Canada. Americans wanted you, Canada, and who can blame them, with your excellent health care and your hockey and your first-rate national anthem. Stan, this is fun, but enough with the #1812problems. According to Virginia Congressman John Randolph “Agrarian cupidity, not maritime rights urges the war. We have heard but one word … Canada!, Canada!, Canada!” I’m not here to criticize you, John Randolph, but that’s actually three words. Now, some historians disagree with this, but the relentless pursuit of new land certainly fits in with the Jeffersonian model of an agrarian republic. And there’s another factor that figured into America’s decision to go to war: expansion into territory controlled by Native Americans. Oh it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules here are simple. I try to guess the author of the Mystery Document, usually I’m wrong and I get shocked. Alright, let’s see what we’ve got here. “You want, by your distinctions of Indian tribes, in allotting to each a particular tract of land, to make them to war with each other. You never see an Indian come and endeavor to make the white people do so.” It’s Tecumseh. DROP THE MIC. Is something that I would do except that the mic is actually attached to my shirt, so...there’s no drama in this. It’s clearly a Native American criticism of white people. And I happen to know that that particular one comes from Tecumseh. And I don’t get shocked today! So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Americans were continuing to push westward into territory where Indians were living. I mean, this was a big reason for the Louisiana Purchase, after all. By the beginning of the war, more than 400,000 settlers had moved into territories west of the original 13 colonies, and they outnumbered American Indians by a significant margin. Some Native groups responded with a measure of assimilation. Cherokees like John Ross wanted to become more “civilized,” that is more white and farmer-y, and some of them did even adopt such civilized practices as written languages, and slavery. The most civilized practice of all. People are always like, “Why aren’t you more celebratory of American history?” Well, why isn’t there more to celebrate? But, other Indians wanted to resist. The best known of these were the aforementioned Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa – Stan, can you just put it on the screen? Yes, let’s just enjoy looking at that. Right, that’s just for all you visual learners. So he was also known as the Prophet because of his religious teachings (and also because of the pronunciation issues). The Prophet encouraged Indians, especially those living in and around the settlement of Prophetstown, to abandon the ways of the whites, primarily in the form of alcohol and manufactured consumer goods. So stop drinking alcohol and eating refined sugars. This guy sounds like my doctor. Tecumseh was more militant, attempting to revive Neolin’s idea of pan-Indianism and actively resisting white settlement. As he put it. “Sell a country, Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?” The Americans responded to this reasonable criticism in the traditional manner: with guns. William Henry Harrison destroyed the natives’ settlement at Prophetstown in what would become known as the Battle of Tippecanoe. And he would later ride that fame all the way to the presidency in 1840 and then spoiler alert he would give the longest inauguration address ever, catch a cold, and die 40 days later. Let that be a lesson to you, American politicians. Long speeches: fatal. So, I’ve just painted a pretty negative picture of the Americans’ treatment of the Indians, because it was awful, but I haven’t mentioned how this relates to the War of 1812. The Americans were receiving reports that the British were encouraging Tecumseh, which they probably were. And the important thing to remember here is that the War of 1812, like the 7 Years War and the American Revolution, was also a war against Indians, and as in those other two wars, the Indians were the biggest losers. And not in the cool way of the Biggest Loser where, like, Trainer Bob helps you lose weight, but in the really sad way where your entire civilization gets John C. Calhoun-ed. So, the War of 1812 was the first time that the United States declared war on anybody. It was also the smallest margin of a declaration of war vote, 79-49 in the House and 19-13 in the Senate. Northern states which relied on trade a lot didn’t want to go to war while Southern and Western states, which were more agrarian and wanted expansion to get land for farming – and slavery – did. The closeness of the vote reflects a profound ambivalence about the war. As Henry Adams wrote: “Many nations have gone to war in pure gaiety of the heart, but perhaps the United States were the first to force themselves into a war they dreaded, in the hope that the war itself might create the spirit they lacked.” Don’t worry, Henry Adams, in the future, we’re gonna get pretty gaiety-of-heart-ish about war. Anyway as an actual war, the War of 1812 was something of a farce. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The U.S. army numbered 10 to 12 thousand and its officers were “sunk into either sloth, ignorance, or habits of intemperate drinking.” The U.S. Navy had 17 ships; Great Britain had 1000. Also, America had very little money; Britain collected 40 times more tax revenue than the U.S But Britain was busy fighting Napoleon, which is why they didn’t really start kicking America’s butt until 1814 after Napoleon was defeated. Napoleon’s defeat was also the end of the practice of impressment since Britain didn’t need so many sailors anymore. Initially, much of the war consisted of America’s attempts to take Canada, which any map will show you went smashingly. Americans were confident that the Canadians would rush to join the U.S.; when marching from Detroit, General William Hull informed the Canadians that “You will be emancipated from Tyranny and oppression and restored to the dignified station of free men.” And the Canadians were like, “Yeah, we’re okay actually,” and so the British in Canada, with their Indian allies, went ahead and captured Detroit and then forced Hull’s surrender. America’s lack of success in Canada was primarily attributable to terrible strategy. They might have succeeded if they had taken Montreal, but they didn’t want to march through Northern New York because it was full of Federalists who were opposed to the war. Instead they concentrated on the west, that is, the area around Detroit, where fighting went back and forth. The British found much more success, even seizing Washington DC and burning the White House. In the course of the battle, British Admiral George Cockburn, overseeing the destruction of a newspaper printing house, told the forces that took the city: “Be sure that all the Cs are destroyed, so that the rascals cannot any longer abuse my name.” It ’s hard out there for a Cockburn. Thanks Thought Bubble. Given these problems, it’s amazing there were any American successes, but there were. The battleship U.S.S. Constitution broke the myth of British naval invincibility when cannonballs bounced off it and earned it the nickname “Old Ironsides.” Oliver Hazard Perry defeated a British fleet in, of all places, Lake Erie. At the Battle of the Thames, William Henry Harrison defeated Tecumseh. And the battle of Horseshoe Bend showed one of the reasons why Indians were defeated when Andrew Jackson played one group of Creeks against another group of Creeks and Cherokees. 800 Indians were killed in that battle. And speaking of Jackson, the most notable American victory of the war was the Battle of New Orleans, which catapulted him to prominence. He lost only 71 men while inflicting 2036 British casualties. Of course, the most memorable thing about the battle was that it took place two weeks after the peace treaty ending the war had been signed, but hey, that’s not Jackson’s fault. Again, no twitter. #1815problems The Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war proved just how necessary the war had been. (Not at all.) No territory changed hands –when negotiations started in August 1814 the British asked for northern Maine, demilitarization of the Great Lakes, and some territory to create an independent nation for the Indians in the Northwest. But none of that happened, not because the U.S. was in a particularly good negotiating position, but because it would’ve been awkward for Great Britain to carve out pieces of the U.S. and then tell Russia and Prussia that they couldn’t take pieces of Europe for themselves to celebrate their victory in the Napoleonic Wars. There were no provisions in the treaty about impressment or free trade, and basically the treaty returned everything to the status quo. So neither the U.S. nor Britain actually won, but the Indians, who suffered significant casualties and gave up even more territory, definitely lost. So with a treaty like that, the war must have had negligible impact on American history, right? Except no. The War of 1812 confirmed that the U.S. would exist. Britain would never invade America again. Until 1961. I mean, the U.S. were good customers and Great Britain was happy to let them trade as long as that trade wasn’t helping a French dictator. The war launched Andrew Jackson’s career, and solidified the settlement and conquest of land east of the Mississippi River, and our lack of success in Canada reinforced Canadian nationalism while also ensuring that instead of becoming one great nation, we would forever be Canada’s pants. The war also spelled the end of the Federalist Party, which tried in 1815 with the Hartford Convention to change the Constitution. In retrospect the Hartford Convention proposals actually look pretty reasonable: They wanted to eliminate the clause wherein black people were counted as three fifths of a human, and require a 2/3rds congressional majority to declare war. But because they had their convention right before Jackson’s victory at New Orleans, they only came off looking unpatriotic and out-of-touch, as the elite so often do. It’s hard to argue that Americans really won the War of 1812, but we FELT like we won, and nothing unleashes national pride like war-winning. The nationalistic fervor that emerged in the early 19th century was, like most things, good news for some and bad news for others, but what’s important to remember, regardless of whether you’re an American, is that after 1812, the United States saw itself not just as an independent nation, but as a big player on the world stage. For better and for worse, that’s a gig we’ve held onto. And no matter how you feel about America’s international intervention, you need to remember, it didn’t begin in Afghanistan or even Europe; it started with freaking Canada. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. The script supervisor is Meredith Danko. Our show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Cafe. If you have questions about today’s video, you can ask them in comments where they will be answered by our team of historians. We also accept suggestions for the libertage captions. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. Goodbye. Don’t forget to subscribe. CCUS11 War of 1812 -



After the abdication of Napoleon in April 1814 British public opinion demanded major gains in the war against the United States. The senior American representative in London told Secretary of State James Monroe:

There are so many who delight in War that I have less hope than ever of our being able to make peace. You will perceive by the newspapers that a very great force is to be sent from Bordeaux to the United States; and the order of the day is division of the States and conquest. The more moderate think that when our Seaboard is laid waste and we are made to agree to a line which shall exclude us from the lake; to give up a part of our claim on Louisiana and the privilege of fishing on the banks, etc. peace may be made with us.:[2]

However, the Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, aware of growing opposition to wartime taxation and the demands of Liverpudlian and Bristolian merchants to reopen trade with America, realized Britain had little to gain and much to lose from prolonged warfare.[3][4]

After rejecting Russian proposals to broker peace negotiations, Britain reversed course in 1814. With the defeat of Napoleon the main British goals of stopping American trade with France and impressment of sailors from American ships were dead letters. The treaty was forward-looking, and did not pay attention to matters that were no longer live issues. Negotiations were held in Ghent, United Netherlands, starting in August 1814. The Americans sent five commissioners: John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, James A. Bayard, Sr., Jonathan Russell, and Albert Gallatin. Except for Russell, all were very senior political leaders; Adams was in charge. The British sent minor officials who kept in close touch with their (much closer) superiors in London.[5][6]


At last in August 1814, peace discussions began in the neutral city of Ghent. As the peace talks opened American diplomats decided not to present President Madison's demands for the end of impressment and suggestion that Britain turn Canada over to the U.S.[7] They were quiet and instead the British opened with their demands, chief of which was the creation of an Indian barrier state in the American Northwest Territory (the area from Ohio to Wisconsin). It was understood the British would sponsor this Indian state. The British strategy for decades had been to create a buffer state to block American expansion. The Americans refused to consider a buffer state and the proposal was dropped.[8]

Plaque at a building in Veldstraat, Ghent, where the American diplomats stayed and one of the locations where the treaty was negotiated. It was located at the retail "Esprit" store on Veldstraat 47. Placed by the United States Daughters of 1812. The room where the treaty was signed is now part of the Hotel d'Hane-Steenhuyse.
Plaque at a building in Veldstraat, Ghent, where the American diplomats stayed and one of the locations where the treaty was negotiated. It was located at the retail "Esprit" store on Veldstraat 47. Placed by the United States Daughters of 1812. The room where the treaty was signed is now part of the Hotel d'Hane-Steenhuyse.

Article IX of the treaty included provisions to restore to Natives "...all possessions, rights and privileges which they may have enjoyed, or been entitled to in 1811"—but the provisions were unenforceable. In any case, the British soon lost interest in the idea of creating an Indian buffer state and stopped supporting or encouraging tribes in American territory.[9]

The British, assuming their planned invasion of New York state would go well, also demanded that Americans not have any naval forces on the Great Lakes and that the British get certain transit rights to the Mississippi River in exchange for continuation of American fishing rights off Newfoundland. The U.S. rejected the demands and there was an impasse.[10][11] American public opinion was so outraged when Madison published the demands that even the Federalists were willing to fight on.[12]

During the negotiations the British had four invasions underway. One force carried out a burning of Washington, but the main mission failed in its goal of capturing Baltimore. The British fleet sailed away when the army commander was killed. A small force invaded the District of Maine from New Brunswick, capturing parts of northeastern Maine and several smuggling towns on the seacoast. Much more important were two major invasions. In northern New York State, 10,000 British troops marched south to cut off New England until a decisive defeat at the Battle of Plattsburgh forced them back to Canada. The defeat was a humiliation that called for a court martial of the commander.[13] Nothing was known at the time of the fate of the other major invasion force that had been sent to capture New Orleans and control the Mississippi River.

The British Prime Minister wanted the Duke of Wellington to go to command in Canada with the assignment of winning the War. Wellington replied that he would go to America, but he believed that he was needed in Europe.[14] He also stated:

I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.[15]

The government had no choice but to agree with Wellington. Prime Minister Liverpool informed Foreign Secretary Castlereagh, who was at Vienna: "I think we have determined, if all other points can be satisfactorily settled, not to continue the war for the purpose of obtaining, or securing any acquisition of territory." Liverpool cited several reasons, especially the unsatisfactory negotiations underway at Vienna, the alarming reports from France that it might resume the war, and the weak financial condition of the government. He did not need to tell Castlereagh that the war was very unpopular; Britons wanted peace and a return to normal trade. The war with America had ruined many reputations and promised no gain.[16][17]

After months of negotiations, against the background of changing military victories, defeats and losses, the parties finally realized that their nations wanted peace and there was no real reason to continue the war. Each side was tired of the war. Export trade was all but paralyzed, and after the fall of Napoleon in 1814, France was no longer an enemy of Britain, so the Royal Navy no longer needed to stop American shipments to France and no longer needed more seamen. The British were preoccupied in rebuilding Europe after the apparent final defeat of Napoleon. Lord Liverpool told British negotiators to offer a status quo, which the British government had desired since the beginning of the war. British diplomats immediately offered this to the US negotiators, who dropped demands for an end to British maritime practices and Canadian territory (ignoring their war aims) and agreed. The sides would exchange prisoners, and Britain would return or pay for slaves captured from the United States.[18]


On December 24, 1814, the members of the British and American negotiating teams signed and affixed their individual seals to the document. This did not itself end the war: that required formal ratification by their governments, which came in February 1815.[19]

The treaty released all prisoners and restored all captured lands and ships. Returned to the United States were approximately 10,000,000 acres (4,000,000 ha; 40,000 km2) of territory, near Lakes Superior and Michigan, and in Maine.[20] American-held areas of Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) were returned to British control, and the American-held territory in Spanish Florida taken from Britain and officially uninvolved Spain were returned to Spanish control. The treaty thus made no changes to the pre-war boundaries.[21]

Britain promised to return the freed black slaves that they had taken. In actuality, a few years later, in 1826, Britain instead paid the United States US$1,204,960 (equivalent to $26,682,776 in 2018) for them.[22] Both nations also promised to work towards an ending of the international slave trade.[21]

Pierre Berton wrote of the treaty:

"It was as if no war had been fought, or to put it more bluntly, as if the war that was fought was fought for no good reason. For nothing has changed; everything is as it was in the beginning save for the graves of those who, it now appears, have fought for a trifle:...Lake Erie and Fort McHenry will go into the American history books, Queenston Heights and Crysler's Farm into the Canadian, but without the gore, the stench, the disease, the terror, the conniving, and the imbecilities that march with every army."[23]


The Treaty of Ghent failed to secure British acknowledgment of American maritime rights, which allowed Britain to maintain its command of the oceans (critical to maintenance of its overseas empire). Nevertheless, the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 meant that much of the British fleet was put in "ordinary", meaning Britain no longer needed to impress foreign seamen to man their fleet. In the century of peace among the naval powers from 1815 until World War I, American rights were never seriously violated.[citation needed]

The course of the war resolved and ended the other major original issue. The Native Americans had been defeated, allowing the United States to continue its expansion westward. To many Americans, enough victories had been scored against Britain (which had just proven to be the dominant world power by leading the defeat of Napoleon) to buttress a sense of honor and full independence from Britain.[24] Canadians also gained pride and honor in that they had successfully repelled the American invasion.[citation needed]

James Carr argues that Britain negotiated the Treaty of Ghent with the goal of ending the war, even though it knew a major British expedition had been ordered to seize New Orleans. Carr says that Britain had no intention of repudiating the treaty and continuing the war had victory been theirs at the Battle of New Orleans.[25]

News of the treaty finally reached the United States after the major American victory in the Battle of New Orleans; it won immediate wide approval from all sides.[26]

The U.S. Senate unanimously approved the treaty on February 16, 1815, and President James Madison exchanged ratification papers with a British diplomat in Washington on February 17; the treaty was proclaimed on February 18.


The Peace Bridge between New York and Ontario
The Peace Bridge between New York and Ontario

The Peace Arch, dedicated in September 1921, stands 20.5 metres (67 ft) tall at the Douglas/Blaine border crossing between the province of British Columbia and the state of Washington. The monument represents a perpetually open gate across the Canada–U.S. boundary.[27] In 1922, the Fountain of Time was dedicated in Washington Park, Chicago, commemorating 110 years of peace between the United States and Britain.[28] The Peace Bridge between Buffalo, New York, and Fort Erie, Ontario, opened in 1927 to commemorate more than a century of peace between the United States and Canada.[29]

See also


  1. ^ The United States gained some territory (the Mobile area) from the Spanish Empire, but that was not mentioned in the Treaty.


  1. ^ Gene A. Smith, "'Our Flag was display'd within their Works': The Treaty of Ghent and the Conquest of Mobile." Alabama Review 52 (1999): 3-20.
  2. ^ Wood, Bryce (1940). "Reuben Beasley to Monroe, May 9, 1814". Peaceful Change and the Colonial Problem. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. 464. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 503. OCLC 3103125.
  3. ^ Latimer, Jon (2007). 1812: War With America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap. pp. 389–91. ISBN 9780674025844.
  4. ^ Gash, Norman (1984). Lord Liverpool: The Life and Political Career of Robert Banks Jenkinson, Second Earl of Liverpool, 1770–1828. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 111–9. ISBN 9780674539105.
  5. ^ Remini, Robert V. (1993). Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union (rev. ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Co. pp. 103–22. ISBN 9780393310887.
  6. ^ Bemis, Samuel Flagg (1949). John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy. New York: A. A. Knopf. pp. 196–220. OCLC 424693.
  7. ^ Henry Adams, History of the United States of America during the Administration of James Madison (1890; Library of America edition, 1986) 2: 1192
  8. ^ Remini 1993, p. 117 in 1991 ed. ISBN 9780393030044.
  9. ^ Mahan, AT (October 1905). "The negotiations at Ghent in 1814". The American Historical Review. 11 (1): 68-87 (esp. 73-78). doi:10.2307/1832365.
  10. ^ Tucker, Spencer C. (2011). The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars, 1607–1890: A Political, Social, and Military History. ABC-CLIO. p. 1097. ISBN 9781851096039.
  11. ^ Gates, CM (March 1940). "The West in American Diplomacy, 1812–1815". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 26 (4): 499–510. JSTOR 1896318.
  12. ^ Daughan, George C. (2011). 1812: The Navy's War. Basic Books. p. 365. ISBN 9780465028085.
  13. ^ Latimer 2007, pp. 331, 359, 365.
  14. ^ Perkins, Bradford (1964). Castlereagh and Adams: England and the United States, 1812–1823. Perkins: England and the United States. 3. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 108–9. OCLC 615454220.
  15. ^ Mills, D (1921). "The Duke of Wellington and the peace negotiations at Ghent in 1814". Canadian Historical Review. 2 (1): 19–32 (quote at p. 22). doi:10.3138/CHR-02-01-02.
  16. ^ Bickham, Troy (2012). The Weight of Vengeance: The United States, the British Empire, and the War of 1812. Oxford University Press. pp. 258–9. ISBN 9780195391787.
  17. ^ Johnson, Allen (1921). "Part 3". Jefferson and His Colleagues, A Chronicle of the Virginia Dynasty – via
  18. ^ Henry Adams, History of the United States of America during the Administration of James Madison (1890; Library of America edition, 1986) 2:115-19
  19. ^ Engelman, Fred L. (December 1960). "The peace of Christmas Eve". American Heritage. 12 (1).
  20. ^ Dean, William G.; Heidenreich, Conrad; McIlwraith, Thomas F.; et al., eds. (1998). Concise Historical Atlas of Canada. University of Toronto Press. plate 38. ISBN 9780802042033.
  21. ^ a b "British-American Diplomacy: Treaty of Ghent; 1814". (transcribed full text of treaty). Avalon Project: Lillian Goldman Law Library: Yale Law School: Yale University.
  22. ^ Lindsay, AG (1920). "Diplomatic relations between the United States and Great Britain bearing on the return of negro slaves, 1783–1828". Journal of Negro History. 5 (4): 391–419. JSTOR 2713676.
  23. ^ Berton, Pierre (1981). "Ch. 13: Ghent, August—December, 1814". Flames Across the Border: 1813–1814. McClelland & Stewart. pp. 418–9. ISBN 9780771012440.
  24. ^ Hickey 2006, p. 297.
  25. ^ Carr, James (1979). "The Battle of New Orleans and the Treaty of Ghent".
  26. ^ Updyke, Frank A. (1913). "The Treaty of Ghent--A Centenary Estimate". Proceedings of the American Political Science Association. The American Political Science Association, 1913. Retrieved from
  27. ^ "History of a Peace Park". United States Canada Peace Anniversary Association. Archived from the original on 2014-03-02.
  28. ^ MobileReference (2007). Travel Chicago: City Guide and Maps. Mobi Travel Series. p. 287. ISBN 9781605010533.
  29. ^ Eisenstadt, Peter R.; Moss, Laura-Eve, eds. (2005). The Encyclopedia Of New York State. Syracuse University Press. p. 240. ISBN 9780815608080.

Further reading

Primary sources

External links

This page was last edited on 17 January 2019, at 01:18
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.