Re: [WarOf1812] Re: Militia
- BritcomHMP@... wrote:
> OK Kevin, I think I see what you are getting at. You are calling hidingNo being sarcastic, just used the wrong term. Won't happen again. ;-)
> behind trees and not doing drill 'light infantry tactics', I hope you can see
> why I got the wrong end of the stick! Or perhaps you were being sarcastic
> and I just didn't get it. :-)
>There are scads of primary evidence You just have to look at any letter written by Brock, Sheaffe, Drummond about the state of the militia. Every single one of them
> However do you have any primary source evidence for this? I can't see any
> commander worth his salt wanting anything to do with such troops as, in most
> instances, they would be worse than useless. Locals not going beyond the
> nearest town and only turning out when the enemy is in the offing perhaps.
> But why would any officer, even a volunteer, put up with such antics? After
> all as an agent of the crown his orders had the force of law behind them.
tried to suspend the habeas corpus and declare martial law. Brock tries and gets voted down, but he dies and becomes a hero. Sheaffe does and is publically censured in
the house and is recalled in disgrace. Drummond does again in 1814 and only becomes a hero after beating the US at Lundy's Lane. (If it had have stopped at Chippawa he
would have suffered the same fate as Sheaffe I bet)
I remember reading a book a few years ago called "Profit, Plunder and Parole" by George Sheppard who was a proffessor at McMaster U in Hamilton Ontario. He really goes
all out to dispel the "Militia Myth" (which I don't buy either John). It is a good book and he is not afraid to throw stones at anyone in Upper Canada. Even Bishop
Strachan himself, whom Sheppard thinks started the Loyal and Patriotic Society of Upper Canada to make money and political favours while taking no active part in the
war. The problem was very severe. It was so bad they had to have an Assize in Ancaster to deal with it. Twenty people were charged for high treason some were local
MPP's. Out of those 20, eight were hanged for high treason! If you look at the flank companies of the 1st Oxford Militia 15 soldiers desert to the USA among them were
the two Lieutenants!
The law was being made by these people so no one could really do anything.
This was a huge problem. Thus the formation of the Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada.(who BTW will be celebrating their 190 anniversary this spring)
--- In WarOf1812@y..., Kevin Windsor <kevin.windsor@s...> wrote:
Drummond does again in 1814 and only becomes a hero after beating the
US at Lundy's Lane.
Okay, let me see if I got this right.....
The British and the Americans get into a knock-down brawl over who
holds the field at Lundy's Lane, the hill with the British artillery on
it in particular. The Americans finally take the hill, the British try
to take it back a number of times but can't. Eventually, the British
withdraw from the field, living the American in posession. The
americans sit around for awhile, decide that nothing more is going on,
and voluntarily wander off to their camps to get a hot meal and some
shut eye. Eveentually, after the Americans left, the British send a
scouting party back to the battlefield, find out that the americans had
left, rush their forces back to an empty field, and claim victory.
And this is touted as a British victory, occupying an uncontested field
after retreating until the enemy voluntarily left?
Uh-huh...just like Dunkirk and Dieppe - you know, the British army re-
occupied both of those places (eventually) after the Germans
voluntarily withdrew, too...does it matter if the time sequence between
retreat and uncontested occupation is a couple of hours or a couple of
years as long as victory gets claimed?
Using the same logic, I notice that the French re-occupyed the mfields
at Crecy, Poictiers, and Agincourt after the English voluyntarily went
home - so lets say that ultimately, the French won those battles, too.