--- In WarOf1812@y..., "PEGGY MATHEWS" <ciefranche21e@m...> wrote:
> Agh, not this discussion again. Let's keep it civil folks, my clothes are
> still smoldering from the last one. ;-)
> As a US citizen I'm as desperate as any for victories on land in the War of
> 1812, but.. Whatever the situation on the field at the (temporary) close
> of action, *as a result of the battle* the US forces withdrew and retreated
> all the way back to their jump off point in Canada. Tactically it was
> probably best qualified as a draw with all honors even, maybe a marginal US
> victory (ever heard the term Pyrrhic Victory?). But *strategically* it
> represented a defeat as the invasion was over.
I'm sure Drummond would have been relieved to hear that, after
retreating from Ft. Erie to Chippewa and laagering down in town for a
> Now whether it was a missed opportunity, or full of "could of" and "should
> of" is irrelevant. The facts are with their leadership in chaos and the
> army battered by two bloody battles in short order, our army left. To me
> that makes it pretty clear who failed to win the campaign.
Wasn't talking about a campaign...just one battle. I seem to remember
reading in every account of the battle that the battered americans had
no difficulty in moving to Ft Erie a day or so later, while it took a
week for Drummond to re-energize his forces
> As for the other battle comparisons, those are too silly to comment upon.
Okay, lets try this one - same period.
Side A is attacked by Side B, beats them off after a prolongued fight
for a prominant piece of terrain on which Side A has placed guns. Side
B returns the next day to discover that Side A has left in retreat,
accidently left a few guns behind. Side B claims victory, because Side
A has split.
Nope - Corunna...Side A were the British. From their point of view,
"Twas a famous Victory".
Just like Lundy's Lane was.