A boxing match, or another bloody nose for John … to... · A boxing match, or another bloody nose...

consortiumthinkingcritical

the

The legend of ChateauguaySong published in a French-Canadian newspaper on November 25, 1813. The song celebrates the Battle of Chateauguay during which 300 soldiers, led by Canadian officer Charles de Salaberry, repelled an advance of 4000 American troops.

#1Who won the war of 1812?

The trumpets sounds, the guns flash, the cannons rear:SALABERRY appears, bravery at his sideAnd three hundred Canadians marching behindJoyously, like he, will challenge death.

Eight thousand Americans advance with a gloomy air.In vain does Hampton their leader count upon their numbers,Massive like a fearsome, lowering cloudBut one that the bright sword of Mars [the Roman god of war] will soon transfix [stab]

[…]

Yes, brave lads, your valour [courage] delights us;Our motherland will be grateful to you.Or else, with a generous hand and heart,Recording her thanks will raise her monument thus:

“Here Canadians covered themselves in glory;Yes three hundred bested eight thousand here.Their constant union was lively bulwark [safeguard]Against the onslaughts of the proud Yankee.Passer-by, behold them … These peaceful strandsWere defended as a new Thermopylae [famous Greek battle site];Here Leonidas [King of Sparta] and his 300 warriorsReturned among us to gather fresh glory.”

“The legend of Chateauguay”Le Spectateur, November 25, 1813 | Histori.ca: Peace and conflict, n.d., http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?subclassName=Document&pageID=365


the

A boxing match, or another bloody nose for John Bull Political cartoon drawn by Charles Williams, published in 1813. The cartoon references the defeat of the British warship Boxer by the American frigate Enterprise in September 1813 off the coast of Maine.

“A boxing match, or another bloody nose for John Bull,” Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, LC-DIG-ppmsca-10754.


King George III stands at left, saying, “Stop … Brother Jonathan, or I shall fall with the loss of blood—I thought to have been too heavy for you—But I must acknowledge your superior skill—Two blows to my one!—And so well directed too! Mercy, mercy on me, how does this happen!!!” On the right, his opponent James Madison says, “Ha-Ah Johnny! you thought yourself a “Boxer” did you!—I’ll let you know we are an “Enterprize”ing Nation, and ready to meet you with equal force any day.”


the

Diary of Ely PlayterDiary entries written by York militia member Ely Playter in April 1813, just after an American force had invaded and burned York (present day Toronto).

#3

April 28th. Walked down to the back of the Town, met Young Debtlor who told me his father was dead, was wounded in the leg, had it cut off and died soon after.

April 29th. At home packing up my things and hideing [sic] them. D. Brooks passed on his way to Kingston and many others also. An [American] officer and some men came to my house, broke the door and took many things away. We watched them til dark.

April 30th. I went to the Garrison and signed my parole and got a pass. I spoke to General Dearborn of his men plundering my house. He said it was contrary to his orders. The appearance of the town and garrison were dismal, the latter shattered and rent by cannonballs and the explosions of the magazine, not a building but shows some marks on it. The town thronged with the Yankees, many busy, the Council office with every window broke and pillaged [looted] of everything, the Government Building, the Block House and the buildings adjacent [beside] all burned to ashes.

Who won the war of 1812?

Ely Playter, “Diary entries, April 28, 29 and 30, 1813” Archives of Ontario, Ely Playter fonds, F 556.


the

The taking of the city of Washington in AmericaPrint published on October 14, 1814, by G. Thompson, likely a British artist.

“The taking of the city of Washington in America,” Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, LC-DIG-ppmsca-31113.



the

Letter from General Macomb to James Monroe#5Letter written by United States General Alexander Macomb to the United States Secretary of War, James Monroe, shortly after the withdrawal of British forces from Plattsburgh, New York, in September of 1814.

H.Q. Plattsburgh, Sept. 15, 1814

Sir – I have the honor to communicate, for the information of the war depart-ment, the particulars of the advance of the enemy into the territory of the U. States, the circumstances attending the siege of Plattsburgh, and the defence of the posts entrusted to my charge.

[…]

Finding, on examining the returns of the garrison [military base], that our force did not exceed fifteen hundred men for duty; and well informed that the enemy had as many thousand; I called on Gen. Mooers, of the New-York militia, and ar-ranged with him, plans for bringing forth the militia, en masse [all together]. The inhabitants of the village fled, with their families and effects, except a few worthy citizens, and some boys, who formed themselves into a party, received rifles, and were exceedingly useful.

[…]

The whole day, until it was too late to see, the enemy’s light troops endeav-ored [attempted] to drive our guards from the bridge; but they suffered dearly for their perseverance [persistence]. An attempt was also made to cross the upper bridge, where the militia handsomely drove them back.

[…]

The conduct of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, of my com-mand, during this trying occasion, cannot be represented [described] in too high term … who have all distinguished themselves, by their uncommon zeal [passion] and activity, and have been greatly instrumental [involved] in producing the happy and glorious result of the siege.

… The loss of the enemy, in killed, wounded, prisoners, and deserters, since his first appearance, cannot fall short of 2,500, including many officers ….

Return of killed and wounded, on the American side, during the skirmishing [fighting] and bombardment above described: Killed, 37 – wounded, 66 – missing, 20 – total, 123.

H. A. Fay (1817), “Collection of Official Accounts, in detail, of all the battles fought by sea and land, between the navy and army of the United States and the navy and army of Great Britain, during the years 1812, 13, 14, & 15,” (New York: E. Conrad), Library of American Civilization: LAC 12346



the

Account of William DunlopEyewitness account from a William Dunlop, a 21-year-old assistant surgeon in the British Army. The account was written following the battle at Lundy’s Lane on July 25, 1814, where the author single-handedly looked after hundreds of wounded from both armies.

It would be a useful lesson to cold-blooded politicians, who calculate on a war costing so many lives and so many limbs as they would calculate on a horse costing so many pounds … to witness such a scene, if only for one hour.

… I had two hundred and twenty wounded turned in upon me that morning, and among others an American farmer, who had been on the field either as a militia man or a camp follower. He was nearly sixty years of age, but of a most Herculean frame [strong physique]. One ball had shattered his thigh bone, and another lodged in his body, the last obviously mortal. His wife, a respectable elderly looking woman … found her husband lying on a truss [bunch] of straw, writhing [twisting] in agony, for his sufferings were dread-ful.

Such an accumulation [buildup] of misery seemed to have stunned her, for she ceased [stopped] wailing, sat down on the ground, and taking her husband’s head on her lap, continued long, moaning and sobbing, while the tears flowed fast down her face; she seemed for a considerable time in a state of stupor [shock], till awakened by a groan from her unfortunate hus-band, she clasped her hands, and looking wildly around, exclaimed, “O that the King and the President were both here this moment to see the misery their quarrels lead to—they surely would never go to war without a cause that they could give as a reason to God at the last day, for thus destroying the creatures that He hath made in his own image.”

In half an hour the poor fellow ceased to suffer.

“Accounts from the Battle of Lundy’s Lane,” HCO: The history of Canada online, n.d.



the

Letter from the Secretary of War to General JacksonLetter sent by James Monroe, the United States Secretary of War, to Major General Andrew Jackson. Jackson commanded the American troops in the battle of New Orleans, the final major battle of the War of 1812.

Department of War,February 5, 1815.

Major GeneralAndrew Jackson

Sir, I have just had the honor to receive your letter of the 9 & 13th … communicating an account of the brilliant victory obtained by the troops under your command, near New Orleans, over the very superior force of the veteran troops of Great Britain, which attacked you on the 8th. It is particularly gratifying [satisfying] to find, that … with the slaughter and captivity of so many of the invading foe, it has pleased providence [fate], to extend a protecting arm over our fellow citizens. History records no example of so glorious a victory, obtained with so little bloodshed on the part of the victorious.

I am instructed by the President to convey [express] to you in strong terms, his approbation [approval] of your conduct and that of the troops acting under you, who have rendered [given] such important services to their country. Your arrangements for the defense of the city in selecting and fortifying [reinforcing] the proper points, at which to oppose the enemy, and the disposition [attitude] of your force in action, afford [give] proof of a talent for command ….

As quoted in Arsène Lacarrière Latour, Historical memoir of the war in West Florida and Louisiana in 1814-15, with an atlas, Gene A. Smith (ed.) (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1999), pp. 292.


Comments in brackets are not part of the original document. They have been added to assist the reader with difficult words.


the

Sergeant John Spencer Cooper remembers the Battle of New OrleansEyewitness account from Sergeant John Spencer Cooper, a member of the British Army, following the Battle of New Orleans and its aftermath on January 8, 1815.

The day after the battle, a truce for six hours being agreed upon, a party of us was sent to bury the dead. In this sad duty, the Americans brought ours to a ditch between our lines and theirs, and laid the bodies in rows. We then took them and threw them into ditches. … While removing the bodies, I stripped two poor fellows of their shirts; they were bloody enough, but I wanted them sadly.

The funeral being over, and the truce having expired, we retired to our huts in haste, and then the game of cannonading [bombardment] began again.

The Americans were highly elated at having beaten the Britishers, and I believe they boast of it to this day. But all things considered, they had little reason. Let us recapitulate [review]—they were in number about 14,000, behind strong breast works [fortifications], and a deep ditch; a frigate [warship] protected their right flank, a wood [forest] and morass [marsh] their left. Cannon were plentiful all along their front.

Our force numbered about 7,000, including perhaps 1,000 sailors. We had no works, no ditch, and only three small guns. Shelter we had none, for the ground in front of the enemy’s works for about a mile was as flat as a bowling green.

Sergeant John Spencer Cooper, “An Account by Sergeant John Spencer Cooper, 7th Royal Fusiliers,” Corvallis community pages, n.d.,




the

Letter from the Duke of WellingtonLetter sent on November 9, 1814, by the Duke of Wellington, the commander-in-chief of the British Army, to the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the peace negotiations to end the War of 1812.

I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession [granting] 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 cessation [stoppage] of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power …. Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate [demand] for the uti possidetis [Latin for “as you possess”—a term in international law that states any property remains with its owner at the end of a war unless otherwise stated in a peace treaty]. You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable [good], does not entitle you to demand any.

As quoted in Mills, Dudley (1921), “The Duke of Wellington and the Peace Negotiations at Ghent in 1814”. Canadian Historical Review 2 (1): 19–32.




the

Treaty of GhentExcerpt from the Treaty of Ghent, signed in Ghent, Belgium, on December 24, 1814, by representatives of Great Britain and the United States to officially end the War of 1812.

His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, desirous [wanting] of terminating [ending] the war which has unhappily subsisted [existed] between the two countries, and of restoring, upon principles of perfect reciprocity [exchange], peace, friendship, and good understanding between them, have, for that purpose, appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries [ambassadors] …. Who, after a reciprocal [exchange] communication of their respective full powers, have agreed upon the following articles:

Article IThere shall be a firm and universal peace between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, of every degree, without exception of places or persons. All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease as soon as this treaty shall have been ratified [approved] by both parties ….

All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, excepting only the islands hereinafter [further on in this document] mentioned, shall be restored [returned] without delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or place … or any slaves or other private property.

“Treaty of Peace and Amity between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, Concluded at Ghent, December 24, 1814; Ratification Advised by Senate, February 16, 1815; Ratified by President; February 17, 1815; Ratifications Exchanged at Washington, February 17, 1815; Proclaimed, February 18, 1815.” HCO: The history of Canada online, n.d.




the

Orleans saved and peace concludedExcerpt from a newspaper article published on February 18, 1815, in the Niles’ Weekly Register, a Baltimore, Maryland newspaper.

Glorious News! Orleans saved and peace concluded.

[…]“The star spangled banner in triumph shall waveO’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”… The enemy has retired in disgrace from New Orleans, and peace was signed at Ghent on the 24th December, on honorable terms: At least, so we believe from the dolefuls [sorrowful looks] of the British ministerialists [government ministers] ….

Who would not be an American? Long live the republic! All hail! Last asylum of oppressed humanity! Peace is signed in the arms of victory!

H. Niles (ed.), Niles’ weekly register: Containing political, historical, geographical, scientifical, astronomical, statistical, and biographical, documents, essays, and facts; together with notices of the arts and manufactures, and a record of the events of the times, vol. 4 (Baltimore, MD: Franklin Press, September 1814 to March 1815), p. 383 Canadian Historical Review 2 (1): 19–32.



#11


the

Casualties and lossesChart published through Wikipedia.org compares the size of the British and American armies before and after the War of 1812, and identifies the casualties and losses suffered by both sides.


“War of 1812,” Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia, Wikipedia Creative Commons License, CC BY-SA-3.0, Unported. March 24, 2012


the

Damn Yankees are trying to steal our victory in 1812Magazine article written by Peter Shawn Taylor, published through Macleans.ca, a Canadian magazine website on Tuesday October 11, 2011.


Brock pulled off three stunning victories within the first few months of the war. He ordered the capture of the U.S. army outpost Fort Mackinac, at the strategic junction of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, before that garrison even knew war had been declared. Then he stunned the continent by bluffing a nervous U.S. Gen. William Hull into surrendering his entire army at Detroit without firing a shot. Two months later he died on the battlefield at Queenston Heights, near Niagara Falls, in the process of repelling another American force ….

The final two years of war proved much less invigorating, perhaps because Brock was no longer around. Each side traded victories and defeats in what became an increasingly bitter struggle. American forces burned Toronto, then called York, as well as Niagara-on-the-Lake. The British torched Buffalo, N.Y., and Washington, pillaged the width and breadth of Chesapeake Bay, and blockaded most of the eastern seaboard.

Significantly, though, every attempted incursion into Canada along the crucial St. Lawrence valley was turned aside, as much due to incompetent U.S. leadership and indifferent troops as to Canadian military prowess. Still, in 1813 a small force of Canadian-born soldiers under the command of Quebecer Charles de Salaberry defeated a far larger American army at Châteauguay, Que. This has become a signature moment in Canadian military mythology ….By 1814, both sides were eager for peace. And yet the Treaty of Ghent, crafted on Christmas Eve 1814, was a curious agreement. All borders were left as they were prior to the war …. It was as if the war never happened.

Peter Shawn Taylor, “Damn Yankees are trying to steal our victory in 1812,” Macleans.ca, October 11, 2011


the

The war that both sides wonExcerpt from a book written by Canadian historian Dr. Wesley B. Turner entitled The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won, published in 2000.


Who won the war? The answer depends almost entirely on what country

you live in. The Americans tend to think they did. They won several big

land battles that in certain cases prevented major British invasions.

They conquered part of Upper Canada and won control of two lakes. They

still take great pride in several single-ship victories. Combat at sea

and on land created heroes and inspired traditions in the navy and army

…. Finally, the United States did not lose anything. In fact, Americans

believed that their country was more respected as a result of the war,

that it proved its strength and independence.

The Canadian view is different. Canadians believe the main American aim

was to conquer Canada. This was not achieved, and therefore the Canadian

side won the war. Certainly, the major American war effort was on land

and directed against Canada, particularly Upper Canada. Canadians

remember the defeat of large American forces by smaller numbers of

defenders. They forget or disregard western Upper Canada or American

victories on Lake Erie and Champlain as well as in single-ship fighting

at sea. Canada did not have war aims because it did not seek war. Simply,

the fact that Canada survived is an argument that the defenders won.

There was a group who clearly lost as a result of this war: native

peoples south and west of Lake Erie. The death of Tecumseh took the

heart out of much of the western Indians’ resistance to the United

States expansion. The Peace negotiations offered them some hope, but

the expectation of a separate Indian nation probably allied with Great

Britain was not realistic and Britain lacked the power to force such a

settlement upon the United States.

Wesley B. Turner, The War of 1812: The war that both sides won (Toronto, ON: Dundurn Press, 2000), pp. 130–131.

A boxing match, or another bloody nose for John … to... · A boxing match, or another bloody nose...

Documents

Transcript of A boxing match, or another bloody nose for John … to... · A boxing match, or another bloody nose...