The War of 1812 Merged Thread

[MAJOR_Baker]

A couple of weeks ago I was watching the History Channel and they had a special on the War of 1812.  I was surprised because I never knew the following facts:

a. US Forces burned the Parliment Bldgs in York
b. Victorious British Forces after Burning much of Washington D.C. were struck by a hurricane and then a Tornado (killed more British Soldiers than engaging US Militia) during their march back to Northern Virgina.  The Hurricane put out the fires that the British soldiers started.
c. One of the Bones of contention was the forced impressment of US Sailors into the British Navy.  The British recinded the practice 1 day before the British Government outlawed it.

 

[Figure11]

There is much about this conflict which is little known on both sides of the border. The best account of this sorry episode, in my opinion, is contained in "The Path of Destiny" by Thos. H. Raddall. Out of print for many years, it presents a very readable, yet detailed account of many of the major actions. The volume itself is part of a greater set of a history of Canada initially published back in the fifties.   If you can find it, what you read may surprise you.

 

[Danjanou]

Maj Baker

Here's a rather good beginners guide to the War of 1812 site with assorted links etc:

http://www.militaryheritage.com/1812.htm

 

[Inch]

We spent a few lectures on the War of 1812 in my HIE 202 course at RMC.  My favourite story as told by LCol Bashow, goes a little something like this.

I think it was Tecumseh, he was leading about 200-300 Indian warriors to fight the Americans at Fort Detroit. Keep in mind that the Americans were terrified of the Indians, mostly because of all the stories about scalping and such, you know how things get exaggerated. Well, Tecumseh knew this and had his men march past the fort, then sneak back around and march past again, they kept doing this all day. The whole time the Americans, all 2000 of them, are watching this thinking there was the biggest Indian army they had ever seen getting ready to attack and that they were in for a total slaughter when the Indians did attack.  Finally, the Fort commander said "to hell with this", or something to that effect,  and they surrendered the fort without a shot fired.

Cheers

 

[104thNBR]

Also at Ft Detroit, Gen Brock had the Militia dress in red coats to make the Yanks think that he had regulars with him. I think he had a total of about 600 troops with him including Tecumseh and his warriors.

This war was the real birth of both the US and of Canada (in my opinion) Even though the US lost the war (they still think they won) they won respect from the then super power England.  Canada gained a self awareness, it also cemented a bond between upper and lower Canada and the Maritime region that eventually brought them togeather as one country.

The US army was born during this war.  Windfield Scott who at the beginning of the war was a Capt of Arty rose to Gen.  His Brigade at Lundys lane stood toe to toe with British regulars and gave as good as they got, even though his brigade was shot up and had to with draw it showed that with Drill and discipline the British could be taken on.  Up to this point in the war most units were comanded by political offerers and training was almost Nil.  Scott changed that.  His Brigade was clothed in there gray fatigue dress because there reg Blue uniforms had not arrived.  that is way today cadets at west point are dressed in gray.

On a side note one of my ancestors on my fathers side served with the 104th New Brunswick reg during the War of 1812, and made the winter march from Fredericton to Kingston.

 

[Bill Smy]

Actually, the grey uniforms now worn by West Point cadets trace their history to the  Battle of Chippawa, not Lundy's Lane.

Another error in the history of this war creeps into Canadian nationalistic rants which state that "we" Canadians burnt the White House. There were no Canadian units on that expedition.

 

[104thNBR]

You are right about Chippawa, what I should have added was that it was during this campain (invasion) Scott made his appearance with his Brigade.  Scott was at the battle of Queensten heights and was captured when the Militia refused to cross the river, siting that they did not have the right to invade an other country, but I believe that they where scared to death of the Natives.

 

[pbi]

The War of 1812 is certainly much more interesting than popular US attitudes would have one think. As far as I can determine, US consciousness (outside a limited circle of military history buffs) of the conflict is limited to the pointless battle of New Orleans. I have a suspicion that some aspects of the war may be somewhat embarassing to the US self-image and thus tend to be glossed over. It certainly was a less than stellar display (although there were some able US leaders).

The war, if studied in detail, also gives Canadians a kick in the ass on several accounts, as opposed to the "National Myth" propagated by Bishop Strachan. Anyboy care to speculate what some of these less well-known or glorious points might be? Cheers.

 

[Danjanou]

Ok why not PBI as long as we're going to have a grown up discussion on it as opposed to some military boards where this cross border topic quickly turns into a nationalistic dick.. er flag waving contest.

Myth 1: The so called Militia Myth that had us believing that brave Canadian farm boys dropped their axes and ploughs grabbed their muskets rallied to the colours and drove off the invading Yankee hordes with little help form the professional British regular garrisons.

Not to degenerate the role of the select and embodied militia in the conflict especially in Upper Canada at Detroit and Queenston, but after 1812 they were mostly used in a line of communications and support role, freeing up the British and Canadian regular units to do most of the "fighting. Notable exception being Chateauguay in Lower Canada where Salaberry's mixed force of Indians, Canadian Militia (mostly French Canadian from Lower Canada), and Fencibles beat back a much larger American force by themselves.

Many argue that this "Myth" perpetuated throughout the 19th Century and delayed the development of a professional Military in this country. Ironically the same war helped the US get rid of a similar "minute man" idea when they realised that they needed a larger trained well led regular standing army because the state militias and volunteers were for the most part not up to the job. Brig General Scott as noted earlier was one of the key proponents in this.

Myth 2: All Canadians repelled or were against the invasion. While areas settled by the UELs were strongly against the invading and at times occupying troops, this was not the case for all inhabitants of BNA especially in Upper Canada. While most of the population here were recent arrivals from the United States. Many were Loyalists true, but quite a substantial number had little of no political views and came for the land. As such this group were at best neutral during the conflict and at worst supported it secretly or openly. The Canadian unit that fought alongside the US forces in Niagara being the prime example.

Again ironically part of the planning for the War and invasion by US politicians counted on this factor. They overestimated of course presuming that the entire population would flock to them and return to the fold so to speak. Hence Jefferson's comment that "the Invasion of Canada would be a mere matter of marching."

 

[QORvanweert]

The Canadian unit that fought alongside the US forces in Niagara being the prime example.

Yes, I was wondering which unit this was?

 

[Danjanou]

Joseph Willcocks a former of the Upper Canada Assembly an rather verbal opponent of Brock there commanded a small mounted body of turncoats called the Canadian Volunteers that operated in the Niagara region in 1813 in areas that had been captured by US forces. (Newark etc). They confined themselves to scouting operations, small raids, including burning Loyalists farms. They were often engaged in skirmishes with the Bloody Boys a small guerrilla unit commanded by Fitzgibbon and the Provincial Dragoons commanded by Hamilton Merrit

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/brit_upcan.html

http://members.tripod.com/~war1812/newark.html

 

[pbi]

That's good Danjanou. That's the two big ones I had in mind. On the issue of the loyalty of recent arrivals from the US, I believe that the Southwestern part of Upper Canada, from London down toward Windsor, was a particularly disloyal area. On Willcocks, IIRC he or some of his Canadian Volunteers were hung at the Ancaster Assizes during the war.

I think the US finds Chateaugai particularly embarassing because their national mythology tells them that that was the sort of thing they did to the British, not the other way around. Blundering about in formation in the woods and getting shot at by folks hiding behind trees and playing tricks on you is supposed to happen to those dumb Redcoats. Cheers.

 

[Danjanou]

On the issue of the loyalty of recent arrivals from the US, I believe that the Southwestern part of Upper Canada, from London down toward Windsor, was a particularly disloyal area.

Which would probably explain General Hull's rather arrogant proclamation when he first crossed over from Detroit in 1812

I think the US finds Chateaugai particularly embarassing because their national mythology tells them that that was the sort of thing they did to the British, not the other way around. Blundering about in formation in the woods and getting shot at by folks hiding behind trees and playing tricks on you is supposed to happen to those dumb Redcoats. Cheers.

Yeah what's that old phrase about Karma or Payback coming back around.  ;D ;D

 

[Jonny Boy]

i was just wondering if it is true that the queens rangers or the york rangers were there when the white house was burned by the British.  i don't know if they were there at all but Simone told me that one of the 2 regiments were

 

[pbi]

I rather doubt it, although I stand to be corrected by some of our resident historians on this site. The burning of Washington did not, IIRC, involve any Canadian troops although this is a persistent Canadian myth. As far as I know, the troops were all British Army, Royal Marines and sailors landed on the Maryland coast by the Royal Navy. They marched inland, scattered the hasty US defense at the Battle of Bladensburg (rudely referred to by the British as the "Bladensburg Races" due the speed with which US troops buggered off), then got to work making a mess of Washington. They then marched back to the fleet and re-embarked. The operation was in reprisal for the burning of York by BGen Zebulon Pike's raiding force.

As far as the QYR being there: I think this is a confusion. The QYR have longed claimed descent from Butler's Rangers, but to the best of my knowledge that Loyalist unit fought in the American Revolution, not in the War of 1812 (I'm going out on a historical limb here-I could be quite wrong...) At any rate, Canadian Army units are not permitted to trace their lineage back beyond the Militia Act of 1855, so the QYR cannot officially claim to have been present at any battle of the War of 1812.

Historians????

Cheers

 

[Navalsnpr]

Here is what I know about the subject.

It was the west wing of the White House that was caught on fire and substained damage.

The Smithsonian has only one display pertaining to this event. It is an article in a frame located in a glass cabinet behind some other trinkets. It does appear that they don't like advertising this to anyone.

The White House has the following information on the event:

http://www.whitehousehistory.org/10/subs/images_archives/Journal4prelease.pdf

 

[Jonny Boy]

the QYR were not there at the burning of the white house. they hadn't been formed yet. there were however 2 separate regiments that were around there war the york ranger and the queens rangers. i know that the queens rangers and the york rangers were against the Americans in both the war of 1812 and the revolution. i am pretty sure that the queens rangers were formed in 1755 by Robert Rogers in New Hampshire. it was formed i believe  for the American revolution and was made up of all loyalists that were fighting for Britain. which makes them the oldest regiment in north america if i am not mistaken. dont take my word for it though.

i do get upset though when people think that the QYR have had anything to do with the American rangers. the two have nothing in common along with history.


http://www.army.dnd.ca/Queens_Own_York_Rangers/qy_rang/battle_e.htm

 

[Danjanou]

PBI you can come back in off your limb.

As one of those resident historian types here, I'd say you got the gist of it, especially the rather amusing if insulting name the Brits gave the battle.

The prepared dinner the Brits sat down to at the President's Mansion aka The Pink House (remember it didn't get the name White House until after it was torched, the white being the white wash used to cover the scorch marks) was supposed to be the "victory dinner" for the US troops after they "sent the invaders back to their ships."

As the Brits were the "victors" and as the US generals and political types were otherwise occupied that evening still "withdrawing in great haste" and as the dinner was already cooked why let it go to waste. They ate it prior to engaging in a little post meal arson.

The only "Canadian connection" with this campaign is that the fleet stopped in Halifax on the way back to Europe and the commander of the troops, General Ross, who was killed at Baltimore  isburied there.

The QYR while active in the American Revolution and afterwards in the settling of Upper Canada (Ontario) were disbanded lonhg before the War of 1812.

The only Canadian "light or rifle units" in that war were the Glengarry Light Infantry from Upper Canada, and the Voltiguer and Chasseur units raised in Lower Canada (Quebec).

 

[a_majoor]

Tiny aside: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment claims decent from "Butler's Rangers", although this is not a direct lineage.

 

[JBP]

Tiny aside: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment claims decent from "Butler's Rangers", although this is not a direct lineage.

That is debatable. But I would say it's correct since I'm no expert. In our armoury there are 3 HUGE paintings of 1.) a Butler's ranger, 2.) WW1/2 soldier and finally 3, a modern day combat due. These are to signify the units change through time.

The Lincs+Winks have over 200yrs history...

Check this out:

Tiny aside: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment claims decent from "Butler's Rangers", although this is not a direct lineage.History of the Lincs + Winks.

Joe
Newbie to the Lincs+Winks