353Re: Who won???
- Feb 20, 1999Sean,
I usually find that I am in agreement with many of the things that you
have written but in this case I am wondering if you cracked your head coming
out of the car today. This will be a first, hearing someone complain that
those on different sides in debate are conducting themselves as gentlemen is
a new one for me. If you would rather change the tone of the conversations
I'm sure that can be accommodated. As far as defending national pride you'll
find that I can be about as salty as they come. In fact you may find I can
be the nastiest person you ever met on the issue, full of more vinegar than
rancid wine. I guess that's what comes of loosing friends in the defense of
a flag that was bought in blood rather than issued by a government divesting
itself of territory it no longer wanted.
As far as the Canadians winning the war I'll go along with them as 20th
century winners, but not 19th century winners. The inhabitants of Canada
were British, not Canadian. No Canadian identity existed before the war. You
had a hodge podge of French, American immigrants and ARW refugees, in many
cases all with differing agendas. That would be why Brock initially did not
trust the militia and you had those problems with Mr. Wilcox. After the war
they were all firmly British, having fought for a common cause and from that
developed the sense of Canadian Nationalism seen today. Which still varies
from providence to providence.
As far as who won a Lundy's Lane....well let me help you with that one
to, lest you grope around in the dark forever. The US won guys, sorry. The
winner of a battle (at least in the tactical sense) is the side left in
possession of the field. They don't have to homestead, just keep it and not
be chased away. The Battle started for the US as a recognizance in force
with the major British action PLANNED for the other side of the river. This
action was recalled due to the rapidly changing situation on Canadian soil,
The British DID NOT hold the strategic ground at the end of the battle and I
defy you to pull up documented proof that they did. The US retired due to
unavailable water making the ground ultimately unsuitable for a relocation
of the camp. The US also retired when they damned well pleased, and in very
good order and at a slow UNMOLESTED pace. Captains Glews much recorded
charge did not take place at the end of the battle but in the middle of it.
The British retired OFF the field and up Lundy's Lane leaving two companies
to monitor US activities. Even these soldiers did not keep close enough
contact to detect the US redeployment until after sun up. The forces that
Mr. Cruikshank mentions in his much discredited accounts as an American rear
guard was nothing more than a work party assigned to remove the pieces on
the day following the battle and the British did not occupy any ground until
the day after. To call this a British victory is kinda like sayin' on your
why to the mail box you found $100.00 (US currency of course) and coming
back in to the house and sayin' "Hey, look I earned $100.00 bucks today." It
doesn't was and it sure aint consistent with the facts. If you have any
further questions I reffer you to "Where right and Glory Lead," by Donald
Graves Appendix C beginning on pg 265. Enjoy it its a good book.
Don't get me wrong I am in no way detracting from the conduct or bravery
of the Crown Forces in any action in any theater of the period, but let's
call a spade a spade, get your facts straight.
Speaking of spades how's that for a shovel full of dirt. Now don't you
think its better when we pull a punch or two and act like gentlemen. Jim
makes one of the finest points I've yet read on this electronic BB. Try to
look at things from a 19th Century point of view not at what resulted in our
20th century world. As a side note Jim I am indebted to you for another
insightful look in to the hobby and the 19th century mind. With my
dissertation about Rob's question a couple of days ago I was attempting to
list the US point of view and aims from a 19th century perspective not sugar
coat anything in a 20th century era of P/C. Unlike some of the crap I read
on this rag from north of the border I am not trying to refight the War of
1812, just reenact it and keep the memory of brave men alive.
4th US Rt. of Inf
From: Sean <shirst@...>
To: WarOf1812@onelist.com <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 10:31 AM
Subject: [WarOf1812] Who won???
>From: Sean <shirst@...>square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of
>Everyone seems to think it necessary to sugar coat their answer so that no
>one gets offended and while I don't want to make enemies I have no problem
>with stating exactly what I think without disclaimers. There was one clear
>and obvious winner in the War of 1812... the Canadians! We one because we
>fly a Canadian flag, have a Canadian national anthem, Canadian (play)
>money, our very own wonderful parliament with all of its problems, taxes, a
>national debt, etc, etc. It may have been considered a minor occurrance on
>the world stage but to us it could be argued to be the most important
>defining point in our nation's history. A small number of men held off a
>vastly more powerful nation with a population 10 times that of Canada.
>Simply put, America declared war on Britian with the intent of capturing
>Canada and we stopped them. The reasons for their invasion are irrelevent,
>land captured by the British means little and the number of battles won by
>either side is moot. After the dust settled and before any peace treaty was
>signed Canada was still there. Conclusion we won the war... hands down.
>While on the topic of who won what though... there is a question that has
>been nagging me. The line people draw about who won the Battle of Lundy's
>Lane. America says it is a clear cut victory on their part and yet can they
>really claim it as such. Casualties on both sides were similar. Yes, the
>Americans did capture the British guns, but then found their position
>tenuous at best and opted to abandon them where they were. They then made a
>tactical retreat back to Fort Erie effectively ending their assault
>campaign up the pennisula. The British on the other hand were left in
>control of the field even if they could put up no effective pursuit of the
>Americans until the next day. They were successful in their bid to stop the
>American advance and hold strategic ground. The British failed to achieve
>these goals at Chippewa and so the victory goes to America in the battle --
>clearly. But at Lundy's Lane America achieved none of it's goal while
>Britian did exactly what they needed to do. With a little coaxing I'm
>prepared to give them a draw but I'm also quite willing to say we won that
>one. (So let the dirt fly now)
>This next section is directed at Rob Henderson.
>Your posting about valian Canadian action is excellent but there are a few
>points you missed that I feel must be corrected.
>Ogdensburg - You mention the Glengarry Light at Ogdensburg but neglect to
>mention the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (all colonial fencibles). The
>entire assault was led by Capt. Tito LeLievre M.I.D. While the Glengarries
>were pinned down by artillery Capt. LeLievre led the Newfoudlanders in a
>bayonet assault against a dug in position and drove the American line back.
>Shortly after the town was surrendered. LeLievre was Mentioned in Dispatch
>for his valiant action.
>Fort George - Again you mention the Glengarries in their bayonet charge
>against the Americans but fail to mention the Royal Newfoundland Grenadier
>company's part in the battle. They fought a rear gaurd action and remained
>in contact with the enemy under withering conditions for over 4 hours. "In
>contact" in military terms means that they were "insight of and engaged
>with" the enemy. The Grenadiers suffered over 50 percent casualties for
>Resupply of Fort Michilimackinac - You mention the heroic march of the
>104th from New Brunswick but what about the Royal Newfoundland Regt's march
>from York to Georgian Bay where they built bateaux in the woods and then
>rowed from there to Fort Michilimackinac. A total journey of 700 kms. with
>the march starting in mid-March.
>I know I'm dwelling on the Royal Newfoundlanders but they are my regiment
>and I hate to see them neglected. I'm actually supporting what you say in
>that it was really Canadians who defended Canadian soil and we who had so
>much to lose if America was victorious. We fought hard to defend our land
>and WE WON!!!
>No ifs, ands, or buts; Canada won the War of 1812!
>Cpl. Sean Hirst
>Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
>We have a new web site! http://www.onelist.com
>The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>