War of 1812 Bicentennial

Chapter V

Campaign of 1814, and what it teaches—American plan of campaign—Opening operations—British again in the ascendant on Lake Ontario—Changing character of the war—British offensive operations—Expedition to Maine—American invasion of Niagara frontier—Occupation of Fort Erie—Correspondence between Brown and Chauncey—Battle of Lundy's Lane—Failure of American expedition to Mackinac—British operations against Plattsburg, on Lake Champlain, and naval reverse on that lake—Bladensburg—Washington—Effect of British reverse at Plattsburg—Termination of the war—New Orleans—Remarks upon the campaign and the war generally—As to ascendancy on the water, and importance of Lake Ontario—Wellington on the defence of Canada—As to naval and military co-operation, and an active, not passive, defence—Impression left by the war.

In this chapter we consider what the campaign of 1814 teaches, and certain lessons of the whole war.

The campaign of 1814 opened under conditions very different in many respects from that of 1813.

The American plan of campaign, also, for this year, though it had points of similarity with that of the two preceding ones, was less ambitious in extent, and rather more concentrated against the central portion of Canada, from Fort Erie on the Niagara frontier to Kingston inclusive.

There was, as before, to be an advance against Montreal and Lower Canada from the direction of Lake Champlain, but this was to be at first apparently rather of the character of a demonstration in force—which might, under favourable circumstances, be pushed further—than a more determined effort.

In the extreme west the American hold upon Amherstburg and the western district was to be strengthened; but the main efforts of the campaign were to be directed to recover what had been lost; to establish a firm footing on the Canadian shores of the Niagara and of Lake Ontario; and to reduce Kingston.

In pursuance of this plan, Fort Niagara, on American soil but now in British occupation, was to be recaptured; and so was Mackinac,¹, between Lakes Huron and Michigan. Fort Erie and Fort George, too, which in the previous campaign had been taken, but afterwards evacuated, were to be seized once more.

Then, if all went well, and Chauncey's naval ascendancy on Lake Ontario could be maintained, there was to be an advance to Burlington Heights; and a portion of the Niagara force, joining with the eastern one at Sackett's Harbour, was to be directed against Kingston.

The American flotilla on Lake Erie² was to be partly employed in the expedition to Lake Huron, and partly in other services an the Niagara River near Fort Erie, above the Falls, and in the trans­port of troops and supplies—i.e., in co-operation with the land forces.

On Lake Champlain the British flotilla had been, since June, 1813, able to hold its own and dispute the control of the lake, but it was not in any dominant strength. Isle aux Noix afforded it a harbour in case of necessity.

Early in the spring an American force, under General Wilkinson, about 5,000 strong, advanced from Plattsburg across the Canadian frontier, but was driven back near La Colle (March 30, 1814) by the garrison of that post, aided by two sloops and two gunboats which had come up the River Richelieu. After this the Americans withdrew, abandoning the idea of further operations here, and eventually entered Sackett's Harbour, leaving posts at Plattsburg and other points on Lake Champlain, while they awaited the result of the movements of the more western forces.

Fighting also went on in the district north of Lake Erie in repelling raids in that direction; but Drummond's regular troops, with the Canadian Militia, succeeded in pushing back the enemy towards the River Detroit.

There was, however, a considerable delay before the main operations on the Niagara frontier com­menced; and to explain why this occurred and the different phase upon which the war was now enter­ing, it is well, before describing further movements, to make some preliminary remarks.

A point to be noted is that at the opening of this campaign, though not at the commencement of earlier ones, Fort Niagara, an American work and on American soil, was in British hands, and that the whole eastern bank of the Niagara as far as Buffalo had been swept by Drummond in the previous December. A determined opposition to the passage of the river was to be anticipated, and before attempting it one question as to which there were opposing views had to be decided—i.e. whether to attack and carry Fort Niagara if possible as a preliminary to this passage, or to watch it merely until Forts Erie and George on the Canadian side had fallen. The decision as to this would, to some extent, affect the strength and arrangement of the invading force.

Next, the American plans were upset by Sir James Yeo having recovered the naval ascendancy once more upon Lake Ontario. In the fluctuating progress of shipbuilding, he had, by the construction of two new and comparatively powerful vessels, become stronger than his adversary Chauncey, and had come out from Kingston upon the lake on May 4, 1814.

A combined British naval and military expedition was then undertaken against Oswego (although it was not deemed advisable to attack Sackett's Harbour). Oswego was captured (May 5), the fort and barracks there were burnt, seven guns taken, and some vessels also with a quantity of stores destroyed. Shortly afterwards, however, on a cutting-out expedition in the neighbourhood, the British on their part fell into an ambuscade and lost severely.

The American flotilla under Chauncey on Lake Ontario was now, in its turn, overmatched upon that lake, and kept within Sackett's Harbour, where it was watched by the British flotilla under Yeo.

Thus the fortune of war had again changed upon the waters of Lake Ontario, and this affected the execution of the American land operations intended to have been carried out in close combination with Chauncey's squadron. The experience, moreover, of 1813, after Stony Creek, must have made clear to the Americans the risk and difficulty of moving towards Burlington Heights while a British flotilla was dominant upon Lake Ontario on their right flank. Lastly—and this is perhaps the most important point of all—not only was the strength of Great Britain's Sea-power beginning to tell severely upon her enemy on the ocean, but her whole policy in the conduct of the war had been altered from "defensive" to "offensive," and that Sea-power was now being put forth in close concert with her land forces against the whole American seaboard.

Soon after the commencement of the war (in 1812–13), British frigates had suffered several reverses upon the ocean at the hands of American frigates,¹ which were of a more powerful class, as well as very well fought by their commanders. The reason of this mainly was that Great Britain, after Trafalgar in 1805, had permitted her naval forces to dwindle down in several respects, and had now to suffer for it; but in total strength and general power she was still much superior to America upon this campaign, though not at the commencement of earlier ones, Fort Niagara, an American work and on American soil, was in British hands, and that the whole eastern bank of the Niagara as far as Buffalo had been swept by Drummond in the previous December. A determined opposition to the passage of the river was to be anticipated, and before attempting it one question as to which there were opposing views had to be decided—i.e., whether to attack and carry Fort Niagara if possible as a preliminary to this passage, or to watch it merely until Forts Erie and George on the Canadian side had fallen. The decision as to this would, to some extent, affect the strength and arrangement of the invading force.

Next, the American plans were upset by Sir James Yeo having recovered the naval ascendancy once more upon Lake Ontario. In the fluctuating progress of shipbuilding, he had, by the construction of two new and comparatively powerful vessels, become stronger than his adversary Chauncey, and had come out from Kingston upon the lake on May 4, 1814.

A combined British naval and military expedition was then undertaken against Oswego (although it was not deemed advisable to attack Sackett's Harbour). Oswego was captured (May 5), the fort and barracks there were burnt, seven guns taken, and some vessels also with a quantity of stores destroyed. Shortly afterwards, however, on a cutting-out expedition in the neighbourhood, the British on their part fell into an ambuscade and lost severely.

The American flotilla under Chauncey on Lake Ontario was now, in its turn, overmatched upon that lake, and kept within Sackett's Harbour, where it was watched by the British flotilla under Yeo.

Thus the fortune of war had again changed upon the waters of Lake Ontario, and this affected the execution of the American land operations intended to have been carried out in close combination with Chauncey's squadron. The experience, moreover, of 1813, after Stony Creek, must have made clear to the Americans the risk and difficulty of moving towards Burlington Heights while a British flotilla was dominant upon Lake Ontario on their right flank. Lastly—and this is perhaps the most important point of all—not only was the strength of Great Britain's Sea-power beginning to bell severely upon her enemy upon the ocean, but her whole policy in the conduct of the war had been altered from "defensive" to "offensive," and that Sea-power was now being put forth in close concert with her land forces against the whole American seaboard.

Soon after the commencement of the war (in 1812–13), British frigates had suffered several reverses upon the ocean at the hands of American frigates,¹ which were of a more powerful class, as well as very well fought by their commanders. The reason of this mainly was that Great Britain, after Trafalgar in 1805, had permitted her naval forces to dwindle down in several respects, and had now to suffer for it; but in total strength and general power she was still much superior to America upon the ocean, and, gaining experience from these reverses, had so asserted that superiority that American commerce was suffering very greatly, while the American people, heavily taxed, were becoming tired of the contest.

The Peninsular War also had now been brought to a close. Since the British victory of Vittoria (June 21, 1813), with the subsequent passage of the Pyrenees and invasion of the South of France by Wellington, the anxiety and strain of that war had been relieved, and on April 13, 1814, just after the Battle of Toulouse, officers from Paris had reached Wellington's camp to notify Napoleon's deposition and the conclusion of peace. Thus that splendid Peninsular army which under him had done such service in Portugal and Spain had become available for other fields, and some of its brigades embarked at Bordeaux shortly after the peace to take part in the American war. Of these, 16,000 men were dispatched to Quebec.

Their influence upon the operations on the Canadian frontier is not to be duly estimated by the actual fighting part which they were able to take in Canada, because, as will be narrated in its proper place, they were not made use of in Lower Canada to any full extent.

They landed in July and August, 1814, some of the regiments being sent to the Niagara frontier, a brigade to Kingston, and the remainder encamped south of Montreal, between the St. Lawrence and the Richelieu. It had now been determined by the British Government to begin an offensive campaign against the northern part of the state of New York, seize Plattsburg, if possible, on Lake Champlain, and carry the war into the enemy's country. With this view, Lord Bathurst wrote as follows to Sir George Prevost, Commander-in-Chief in Canada, on June 3, 1814:

"The object of your operations will be, first, to give immediate protection to, and, secondly, to obtain, if possible, immediate security for, His Majesty's possessions in America. The entire destruction of Sackett's Harbour and of the naval establishments on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain come under the first description. Should there be any advanced position on that part of our frontier which extends towards Lake Champlain, the occupation of which would materially tend to the security of the Province, you will, if you deem it expedient, expel the enemy from it, and occupy it by detachments of troops under your command, always, however, taking care not to expose His Majesty's troops to being cut off by too extended a line of advance. At the same time, it is by no means the intention of His Majesty's Government to encourage such forward movements into the interior of the American territory as might commit the safety of the force placed under your command."

Sir George Prevost's reply to this letter was that the instructions should be obeyed, but that only defensive measures would be practicable until the complete command of Lakes Ontario and Champlain should be obtained, which could not be expected before the September following.

On August 14, 1814, Sir George Prevost writes to Lord Bathurst: "While Kingston is blockaded, your lordship must be aware that no movement against Sackett's Harbour can take place." Thus Yeo was not at this moment in ascendancy on Lake Ontario.

An expedition was also sent from Halifax under Sir John Sherbrooke and Rear-Admiral Griffiths against the coast of Maine, in July and August, 1814, which coast was taken possession of from the Penobscot River to New Brunswick, and held till the close of the war. About the same period another under Vice-Admiral Cockburn and General Ross proceeded to Chesapeake Bay (as mentioned further on), partly to carry out a raid upon Washington which was successfully accomplished, and partly to detain upon that seaboard American troops which might otherwise be sent to oppose Sir George Prevost in Lower Canada.

It had become very evident that the war was assuming an entirely different aspect, and henceforth as a fact Great Britain's power both by land and sea had a preponderating influence upon the contest, and hastened its termination.

The news of the conclusion of peace with France, although the United States could not, of course, tell with certainty the exact effect which this would have upon the operations in Canada and against the American borders, left it undoubted that America must now prepare to defend herself from attack in many quarters.

The American Army was every day improving in strength, organization, and discipline; but, on the other hand, the Government could not venture to now commit it entirely to the conquest of Canada, where also it was practically certain that the defending forces would soon be materially reinforced from the Mother-Country; and the shadow of anticipated events produced largely the hesitation and delay which in the early summer of 1814 marked the American plans for the invasion of the Niagara frontier, the execution of which did not actively commence until July.

We now pass on to the events of 1814 upon this frontier.

Early in July General Brown, commanding the American force, crossed the river from Buffalo with two strong brigades, occupied Fort Erie, which surrendered with its small garrison of under 200 men, and advanced by Queenston upon Chippewa, the British retiring, but disputing the ground.

Brown now wrote thus¹ to Chauncey, urging him to co-operate with him, and the correspondence illustrates the difficulty experienced during the war in arranging combined action between the naval and military forces. It may be said, too, that upon the British side very urgent communications calling for assistance were at times sent from Drummond to Yeo, and occasionally in vain, in 1813–14.² Sometimes these requests were complied with, sometimes not. It, in fact, depended upon whether the navy was, or was not, dominant upon the water, instead of being only able to keep the lake while watching and manœvring against the enemy.

Brown to Chauncey.

"I do not doubt my ability to meet the enemy in the field, and march in any direction over his country, your fleet carrying for me the necessary supplies. We can threaten Forts George and Niagara, and carry Burlington Heights, and York, and proceed direct to Kingston and carry that place. For God's sake, let me see you."

Chauncey to Brown (in reply).

"I shall afford every assistance in my power to co-operate with the army whenever it can be done without losing sight of the great object for the attainment of which this fleet has been created—the capture or destruction of the enemy's fleet. But that I consider the primary object, and I shall not be diverted from my efforts to effectuate it by any sinister attempt to render us subordinate to, or an appendage of, the army."

Brown still advancing, Sir Gordon Drummond hastily came up from York, and moved forward, though inferior in strength, to oppose him; and one of the most closely contested and sanguinary battles of the war was now fought at Lundy's Lane¹ (July 25, 1814). The contest was continued until after dark, and both sides lost severely; but the Americans could not drive the British back, and the next day, destroying their heavy baggage, they retreated towards Fort Erie. This British victory was a soldiers' battle of desperate downright fighting with the bayonet, and a most determined courage was shown on both sides.

Drummond now endeavoured to carry Fort Erie, which the enemy had occupied, by storm (August 15); but, failing, invested it for some time.

We need not refer further to the operations in this part of the theatre of war. Chauncey yet again in the autumn recovered the ascendancy on Lake Ontario; but finally lost it to Yeo on October 10, by the launch of the British ship St. Lawrence, of 100 guns, at Kingston, which greatly strengthened Yeo's fleet.

In the end, the Americans blew up the works at Fort Erie (November 5) and retired across the Niagara. No decisive naval battle had been fought on the waters of Lake Ontario when the peace put an end to hostilities.

The expedition sent to recapture Mackinac from the British was unsuccessful. It was not despatched until July, and the attacking troops were driven off by the defenders of the post.

Later in the year (September) there was some fighting upon the waters of Lake Huron, between American vessels left to prevent supplies reaching Mackinac, and British ones from Matchedash Bay, whence these supplies were sent.

In this, two American schooners of Perry's former fleet on Lake Erie were taken; and two others were captured near Fort Erie, on the Niagara frontier. This reduced the American flotilla, which in 1813 had been victorious over Barclay, in the number of its smaller vessels on Lake Erie, and as winter approached it went into harbour at Presqu'ile.

At this point, and before entering upon the events which, in consequence of Lord Bathurst's instructions to Sir George Prevost, took place in the direction of Lake Champlain, it is convenient to say that the experience of this war had fully shown the difficulty of supplying the important post of Mackinac either by land from York to the Georgian Bay (Lake Huron), or from the River Ottawa through Lake Nipissing, and across some miles of wilderness.¹

A depot of supplies had been formed at Matchedash Bay, close to Penetanguishene, but in October, 1814, the necessity of establishing a military post and dockyard near this spot was strongly urged, and would no doubt have been carried out had the war continued.

Mackinac at the peace was given back to America, but the importance of the straits was fully demonstrated in the war.

Towards Lake Champlain a British force of three brigades, under Sir George Prevost, crossed the boundary at Odell Town on September 1, 1814, and marched towards Plattsburg with the intention of destroying the works there, consisting of redoubts, blockhouses, and batteries. This force reached the north bank of the River Saranac, close to Plattsburg, on September 6, where they halted to close up the troops, and erected batteries opposite those of the enemy on the river. The Americans, as the British advanced, took up a position at Plattsburg, south of the Saranac (the bridge over which they partially destroyed), where the river enters the lake. Here both their troops and their flotilla, if the latter came sufficiently inshore, could be covered by the land bridges.

It was now arranged between Sir George Prevost and Captain Downie, the naval officer commanding the British flotilla intended to co-operate on Lake Champlain, and which was at this time a short distance down the Richelieu River, that the latter should, when the wind permitted, come up, enter Plattsburg Bay, and (in order to draw off American attention from the movements of the British land forces at Plattsburg) attack their flotilla. Directly this attack commenced these forces were to open fire upon the American works from the north bank, threatening a passage there, and at the same time a brigade which was to be detached higher up the Saranac, to cross at a ford, was to assault and storm the works from that direction.

This enterprise was one of the most unfortunately conducted of the war.

The strength of the two fleets in vessels and guns on the morning of September 11, 1814, when, in pursuance of this plan, the British flotilla sailed to attack the American, was fairly equal; but it has been given so differently in various accounts that it is necessary to say something in explanation of this.

Roosevelt contrasts the two flotillas, after careful examination, thus:¹

But Captain Downie had only just taken over the command of the British flotilla, and was unknown to his officers and men, while his vessels were most indifferently equipped and manned,² and in a very incomplete state of preparation for battle.

Under these circumstances he was called upon to carry out a task to accomplish which with success required not only bravery and average seamanship, but manœvring power, cohesion, and discipline of a high order, and such as can only be looked for as the result of long and careful training.

This task was to sail up under a wind not too favourable,¹ and so bear round a point of land into Plattsburg Harbour as to engage on reasonably favourable terms a flotilla of equal strength, anchored in a selected position, from which its guns could bring a concentric fire upon his vessels.

Before Downie had even come into close action one of his vessels had grounded; and during the battle above (gunboats) either could not or did not engage in the main fighting line in support of their consorts at all.

Some writers do not apparently include in the relative strength of the two flotillas those vessels which did not take part in the actual decisive fighting, although they were intended to do so, and therefore give their strength much as follows:²

Downie himself was killed early in the day; his flagship, the Confiance, had soon to strike her colours; and the British flotilla was decisively defeated, the losses on both sides being severe.

In the meantime, although fire was opened from the north bank of the Saranac upon the American batteries on the shore of Plattsburg Bay, no assault was delivered.

The British brigade ordered to cross the Saranac at the ford was composed of regiments which, under Wellington in the Peninsula, had carried by storm many strongly-defended positions; but its hour of march had been fixed much too late at headquarters,¹ and a mistake in direction also was made at a fork of the road by a staff officer, which caused a slight (though apparently only a slight) delay. Thus, some time before it had reached the batteries to be attacked, the British flotilla had been defeated on the lakes.

Orders were then sent to the brigade to immediately retire, Sir George Prevost having decided that the possession of the enemy's works would not now offer any compensation for the loss which might be sustained in taking them.

Accordingly, the troops were withdrawn, and shortly afterwards the army fell back to Montreal.

A naval court-martial, which assembled in connection with the loss of Downie's squadron, found that the British attack would have been more effective if part of the gunboats had not withdrawn² from action, and the wind prevented others from taking up their stations; and while honourably acquitting the surviving officers except one, the court considered that the disaster was caused by circumstances some of which reflected upon the conduct of the land operations. In consequence of this, Sir James Yeo was called upon to formulate definite charges. These were in substance that the Commander-in-Chief, Sir George Prevost, had induced Captain Downie to attack by leading him to expect co-ordination from the land forces, which was not given; that he had not assaulted the works at the same time as the naval action began, and as he had given Downie to understand that he would; that he had disregarded the signal for co-operation which had been previously agreed upon; and that he had not made a land attack either during or after the naval action, whereas, if he had, the squadron might have been saved.¹

These charges were communicated to Sir George Prevost, who was to be given an opportunity to answer them before a court-martial which was directed to assemble in England in January, 1815, and he was brought home for that purpose. This court-martial, however, never sat. The health of Sir George had completely broken down under the strain of the war and the anxiety and mortification entailed by its latter events, and he died a few months afterwards in England, aged forty-eight, without having been heard officially in his defence.

The order for the troops to retreat without assaulting the works at Plattsburg caused much indignation and heartburning in Canada; but what it is more especially necessary to draw attention to here is the importance, under trying circumstances to a fleet, not only of ships and guns, but of preparation, equipment, crews, and training; and that, after the destruction of Downie's fleet, further offensive operations along the shores of Lake Champlain and towards Albany must have been attended with grave risk of troops being cut off, until the British could recover naval ascendancy on that lake.

Referring to the necessity of having command of the lakes, in order to operate with permanent success in their neighbourhood, Mahan writes:¹

"The Battle of Lake Champlain, more nearly than any other incident in the war of 1812, merits the epithet decisive. The moment the issue was known Prevost retreated into Canada, entirely properly, as indicated by the Duke of Wellington's words before and after."²

The events on Lake Champlain practically closed the important operations of the war on the Canadian frontier, though it had been, and was still being, actively carried on elsewhere.

In August, 1814, a British naval and military expedition from the Atlantic seaboard proceeded from Chesapeake Bay up the River Patuxent, under Rear-Admiral Cockburn and Major-General Ross; and the troops under the latter marched upon Washington, the capital of the United States. After a victory at Bladensburg³ (August 24), General Ross entered that city, burnt some of the public buildings, in retaliation for earlier incidents in the operations against Canada, and then retired.

Of this daring raid—for such it may be termed—Jomini, the well-known French military writer upon war, thus speaks:

"The English performed an enterprise which may be ranged among the most extraordinary—that against the capital of the United States of America. To the great astonishment of the world, a handful of seven or eight thousand English were seen to descend in the midst of the State of ten millions of souls, penetrate a considerable distance, besiege the capital, and destroy the public establishments there—results which history may be searched in vain for another example of."

An attack made on Baltimore after this was to some extent successful, but in it General Ross was killed, and, after severe loss on both sides, the troops withdrew.

The British reverse at Plattsburg possibly affected in some degree the conditions of the peace which was concluded before the close of the year. Negotiations with a view to the cessation of hostilities had been going on at this period for some time, and Commissioners had assembled at Ghent, endeavouring to arrange its terms; while Lord Castlereagh desired to obtain such a modification of the Canadian frontier line as would give Canada greater control of the lakes.

He wrote to the Peace Commissioners of Great Britain at Ghent, on August 14, 1814, to the effect that the views of the Government were strictly defensive; that territory, as such, was by no means their object; but that Great Britain considered herself "entitled to claim the use of the lakes as a military barrier." It was apparently the design to at least stipulate that no fortifications should in future be erected on the southern shores of the great Canadian lakes.

At this period America was even more anxious than Great Britain for peace. Two-thirds of her mercantile class were in serious financial difficulties, and much distress prevailed in her manufacturing districts.

"The extreme embarrassment," writes Mahan,¹ "under which the United States as a nation laboured in 1814 was mainly due to commercial exclusion from the sea"—in other words, to the effect of British naval power upon the ocean.

British successes on land at this moment would have greatly strengthened the hands of Great Britain in the peace negotiations, but the reverse at Plattsburg weakened them. A treaty was signed at Ghent, December 24, 1814, under which the territories of each party to the war were to remain as they had stood when hostilities opened, the exact course of the boundary-line of 1783 being left to be hereafter determined by a mixed Commission of the two nations.

Under this Amherstburg was handed back to Canada, and Fort Niagara and Mackinac to the United States.

After the declaration of peace, but before the notification of it had been communicated to the British forces before New Orleans, the latter were repulsed in an attack upon the lines of that place (January 8, 1815), and this, with the subsequent surrender to the British of Fort Bowyer on the Bay of Mobile, practically concluded the events of the war.

Remarks.

Again in this campaign, as in that of 1813, the influence of the control of the water upon land operations is strikingly brought out. We see it in the way in which the constantly fluctuating ascendancy on Lake Ontario—now in the hands of Chauncey, now in those of Yeo—bore upon both the British and the American land movements near that lake, and we see it in the retirement of the army after the naval defeat on Lake Champlain.

Lake Ontario is, comparatively speaking, a more important lake, with regard to the defence of Canada, than Lake Erie; and, fortunately, the Canadian shore of Lake Ontario afforded facilities for a good naval port—Kingston. The success of an enemy upon Lake Erie cannot, so long as Lake Ontario and the country to the north of it, including the eastern shore of Lake Huron, are in British hands, reduce Canada, or cut off the country east of Toronto from Montreal and the sea.

After Perry's naval victory on Lake Erie in 1813, the control of that lake had passed entirely into American hands; but there was no American ascendancy upon Lake Huron, and no decisive superiority on Lake Ontario. Thus that victory, though it was disastrous for Canada, was not crushing. Of all the lessons of the war, this is perhaps of the greatest value with respect to the defence of the Canadian frontier.

Had Yeo's flotilla been destroyed on Lake Ontario early in 1814, as Barclay's had been on Lake Erie in September, 1813, and Downie's was in the following September on Lake Champlain, it can be seen how serious the consequences would probably have been for Canada.

On the other hand, the destruction in 1813 or 1814 by the British, of Sackett's Harbour on Lake Ontario or of Chauncey's flotilla, would have been a very heavy blow for the United States.

By writers of much repute upon this war both Yeo and Chauncey have been blamed for not having brought matters earlier to a decisive issue on Lake Ontario.

To Sir James Yeo, however, upon whose shoulders, after Barclay's defeat, lay a heavier burden of responsibility comparatively than that borne by Chauncey, Canada owes this great obligation—that he never at least allowed the complete and undisputed supremacy on Lake Ontario to pass finally to his rival.

Whether he could have safely given more assistance than he did to Barclay on Lake Erie, or to Downie on Lake Champlain, or to Drummond in the autumn of 1814, are matters most difficult to determine.

We have dealt fully enough now upon the value in the defence of Canada of ascendancy upon the lakes and the St. Lawrence, to make it easily intelligible why President Maddison, of the United States, wrote, as he did in 1812:

"The command of the lakes by a superior force on the water ought to have been a fundamental part of the national policy the moment the peace of 1783 took place."

Also why Wellington wrote thus in 1814, and later in 1825:

Wellington to Sir George Murray.

"Whether Sir George Prevost was right or wrong in his decision at Lake Champlain is more than I can tell, but of this I am certain—he must equally have retired to Kingston,¹ after our fleet was beaten, and I am inclined to believe he was right.

"I have told Ministers repeatedly that a naval superiority on the lakes is a sine qua non of success in war on the frontier of Canada, even if our object should be only defensive, and I hope, when you are there, they will take care to secure it for you."

Wellington to Lord Bathurst.

In this communication, Wellington, commenting upon recommendations which had been submitted to him as to the defences of North America, alludes to the necessity of establishing connecting communications between Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick; and of erecting military works at Quebec, Halifax, Montreal, Kingston, and Niagara. He further expresses the opinion that naval stations should be maintained on the great lakes, and then adds:

"I do not entertain the slightest doubt that if the connections and works proposed by the Committee are carried into execution, His Majesty's dominions in North America ought to be, and would be, effectually defended and secured against any attempt to be made on them hereafter by the United States, however formidable their power, and this without any material demand upon the military resources of the country; so, on the other hand, I am convinced that if these or some measures of this description are not adopted, and if measures are not taken at an early date to manifest the determination of the King's Government to hold these dominions at all hazards, we cannot expect the inhabitants, upon whose loyal and gallant exertions we must in the end depend for their defence, will do otherwise than look for the security of their lives and property to a reasonable submission to the United States. Even by the greatest exertion of the military resources of His Majesty's Government in time of war, these dominions could not be successfully and effectively defended without the adoption of the greater part of the measures proposed. But if they are all adopted, and attention is paid to the militia laws in these countries, and care taken to keep alive the military spirit among the population, the defence would not be a more severe burden upon the military resources of the Empire in war than such defence has proved to be during the late war."¹

The above recommendations upon which the Duke of Wellington comments are no doubt connected with the report of Sir James Carmichael Smyth, R.E., who, in the year 1825, was sent out to examine into the question of Canadian defence, when the Duke was Master-General of the Ordnance. This report was in 1826 printed "for the use and convenience of official people only," but was subsequently, in 1862, embodied in Précis of the Wars in Canada.²

It is of interest to see in this work that Sir James Carmichael Smyth dwells a good deal on the importance of Kingston, which he considered to be a better harbour than Sackett's Harbour, on the American side.

"There seems no good reason," he writes, "why we should not command a naval superiority on Lake Ontario," and the Bay of Quinté he describes as "the finest basin in the world."

His opinion was that if Montreal Island was fortified, Kingston strongly held, and communication between these points established, back of the frontier (which the Rideau Canal, commenced in 1825, was intended to supply), the British position on Lake Ontario would then be much strengthened; that Montreal was the key of Canada; that if a harbour opposite, at the mouth of the Chateauguay River, were fortified, it would be a great advantage; and that Isle aux Noix, St. John's, and Chambly should be held as advanced posts, to detain an enemy upon the south side of the river.

Although the circumstances of Canada have in several respects altered since 1814, the opinions of the Duke of Wellington and Sir James Carmichael Smyth remain of great value to-day.

The Duke's remarks, made in 1825, were written, it is to be noted, after the "Rush-Bagot" Convention of 1817 (see Chapter VI.), and so apply to the present situation of Canada under that Convention. They clearly advocate the maintenance of naval stations upon the lakes—i.e., apparently stations which in war could become such—although under that Convention armed vessels, beyond the number authorized, could not be built upon their shores or serve upon their waters.

It is interesting also to notice that the Duke of Wellington, who, as an Imperialist, was far in advance of his time, speaks of the Empire and the "dominions" of North America, thus using terms which to many will appear as if written not eighty-five years ago, but subsequent to the period when, under Lord Beaconsfield's administration, the Queen became Empress of India; and after Canada had become a Dominion.

With respect to the importance of close co-operation between the navy and the army, especially along a frontier such as the lake and river one of Canada, it has been recently said that "the whole history of the British Empire is an illustration of the fact that the two services are interdependent, and that its safety hinges upon their combined action and co-operation."¹

In a special manner do the events of the war of 1812–14 which we have related above illustrate this.

They indicate, moreover, how important it may become at times that over the two services should be some supreme authority, competent at a crisis to give prompt directions to both, and with decision enough to do it.

In this war the naval and military commanders, each zealous for his country's service, were yet so hard pressed in their respective spheres that they very frequently felt unable to aid each other without evident danger to those interests which they individually had to safeguard.

It is under these circumstances that joint and prompt action for the common good can only be secured by a supreme head, capable and ready to assume the responsibility of ordering it; but the necessity for this supreme exercise of authority must arise less frequently in proportion as each service has been trained to understand the wants of the other, to work with the other, and to realize how essentially combined action contributes to their effective power.

Mahan thus comments upon the action of Chauncey in connection with the operations on Lake Ontario:¹

"The destruction of the enemy's fleet is the means to obtain naval control; but naval control in itself is only a means, not an object. The object of the campaign was to acquire ascendancy on the Niagara Peninsula. Naval control would minister thereto, partly by facilitating the reinforcement and supply of the American Army, and conversely by impeding that of the British."

Roosevelt also says:²

"His (Chauncey's) ideas of the purpose for which his command had been created were erroneous, and very hurtful to the American cause. . . . The real purpose was to enable Canada to be successfully invaded, or to assist in repelling an invasion of the United States. These services could only be efficiently performed by acting in union with the land forces."

And Sir George Prevost writes to Lord Bath­urst, October 18, 1814:

"Military operations are unavoidably combined With naval co-operation, and unconditionally de­pendent upon it. This conviction has excited a struggle for ascendancy on the water that has drawn forth on both sides an array of vessels that could never have been anticipated on these inland waters; and the naval commanders have, I am afraid, been led to consider themselves as directing squadrons which, by a trial of strength, were to decide the fate of the war, forgetting their necessary identity with the land force for the general pros­perity of the common cause."

It can be seen that the land forces could no more secure the command of the lakes without the navy than the navy could terminate the war with­out the army.

The war of 1812–14 on the Canadian frontier has left impressions in some quarters on both sides of the Atlantic which it seems well to mention.

One is that in war with a Power upon her southern border, Canada, in that direction, must necessarily be overrun, although British successes elsewhere may ultimately secure victory in the war.

Now, it would be palpably over-sanguine to contend that Canada, with her extended frontier, marching with that of another Power, could be absolutely secured against temporary occupation of her soil at all points; and such a view would be over-sanguine even if held with respect to England and the invasion of her borders, although she is an island.

But, nevertheless, that the Canadian southern frontier must of necessity be overrun is not appar­ently the teaching of this war; and the idea that it is so—that Canada, her borders, and her cities, must inevitably, and whatever she may do, be expected to bear the brunt of hostile occupation—has a tendency with some to create hopelessness and indifference to the subject of Canadian defence generally.

In reality the teaching of the war is rather that, with reasonably adequate, well-equipped, and well-commanded naval and military defensive forces, Canada need not be overrun.

In 1812, although Hull for a few days entered Canada on the west, he was quickly driven out, and all attempts at invasion in that campaign failed.

In 1813 (April and May) it seems improbable that York (Toronto} would have been burnt, or the Niagara district overrun, had not ascendancy on Lake Ontario been lost through want of energetic preparation to maintain it; and when in June, 1813, it was regained, the invaders were compelled to fall back. Later on, it is true that, owing to the failure to retain absolute supremacy on that lake, and the dependence of the land forces at that time upon water communication¹ for all supplies, these forces could not act effectively, and then after Barclay's defeat and Proctor's retreat, the Western District was again occupied.

But in the following year (1814) the invasion of the Niagara frontier was repulsed with loss, and so were all efforts in the direction of the St. Lawrence below Kingston and towards Montreal.

The war seems principally to convey the follow­ing lessons, in addition to what has been so plainly laid down by the Duke of Wellington, as to the sine qua non of naval superiority on the lakes, viz.: The importance of a bold and active defence, as illustrated at Detroit, Queenston Heights, Stony Creek, Chrysler's Farm, and in Drummond's operations on the Niagara frontier; and beyond this, as We have before said, the importance of Lake Ontario and the value of naval and military co-operation.

The failure of the attacks on Sackett's Harbour in 1813 and Plattsburg in 1814 prove nothing to the contrary. In neither was the attack pressed home, and at Plattsburg there was in reality no naval and military co-operation, but a striking absence of it, and the effect which vigorous and combined operations would have produced was, in consequence, not tested.

To expect that even the most enterprising General must be invariably successful in such a game of risks as war is too much. Occasionally, as with Drummond at Fort Erie, and with Wellington at Burgos, in the Peninsula, he may fail, owing to various circumstances, but the teaching of all history, as of this war, is that, as a rule and on the whole, a bold defensive policy, as compared with a merely passive or timid one, will win. It is certain also that to allow any portion of a defensive force, through want of timely preparation, to fall into the condition of Barclay's flotilla on Lake Erie, or the forces of De Rottenburg and Proctor in September, 1813, or to be indifferently equipped and trained, as was Downie's flotilla on Lake Champlain, and then require it to meet an enemy, is to court defeat.

Another impression left by the war, and which in past years, at all events, one heard expressed in Canada, is that, should Great Britain be involved in a contest with even one great naval Power—not to say two—it would be impossible to trust with any confidence to her reaching the Canadian Atlantic or Pacific coasts, still less the great lakes, with an adequate portion of her fleet and military reinforce­ments in time to prevent invasion. This, it is urged, would require a promptitude of initiative action, perhaps even previous to a declaration of war, which no British Government under the conflict of party politics, and the probable dis­inclination to precipitate hostilities, could be counted upon to take. It is not forgotten that in 1861, in what is termed the "Trent Affair," the Government of Lord Palmerston did take prompt action; but this is looked upon as affording no precedent which other Governments will necessarily, or probably, follow.

In the war of 1812–14 it will have been noted that no reinforcements of consequence—naval or military,—reached Canada until nearly a year after the declaration of war.

Moreover, it is understood to be the naval policy of Great Britain (and a sound one strategically) that I the points to which she would send her fleet in the event of war must depend entirely upon where the most decisive blow can be struck by it in the interests of the Empire as a whole; and it is believed—prob­ably rightly—that no British Government, whatever might be its desire, could bind itself, or ever would bind itself, to give assistance from the British Navy to Canada within several weeks or months—per­haps six months—after the outbreak of hostilities.

But Canada is within a very few days' steam (under a week) of Europe. Troops cannot be transported safely across the Atlantic without an escort of armed vessels, and naval or military action at the present day, to be effective, must be prompt. General Langlois, formerly member of the Higher War Council of the French Army, thus expresses himself recently¹ with respect to what is termed the Entente Cordiale with France:

"The Entente between England and France is advantageous to the latter, but on the express con­dition that the British expeditionary force can be landed on our coast on or before the fifteenth day of mobilization—otherwise it will be too late."

Perhaps a kindred thought has risen at times in the minds of some in Canada. In no portion of the Empire is there more complete confidence in the power of the Imperial Navy, or a greater admira­tion for the naval service. It is not the power which is questioned, but the prompt exertion of it. They would like to feel that naval protection from Great Britain could be expected with confidence upon the coast of Canada within a definite and a short time.

The above impression is mentioned because it is not based upon mere illusion, and probably has had its influence in damping enthusiasm to some extent in the past when the subject of naval contributions has been brought forward, as well as in stimulating the desire to build up a Canadian Navy.

What that navy may develop into in the future time alone can show, but the operations and course of the war of 1812–14 seem abundantly to illustrate that, at that period even, in a war involving the Dominion, there was plenty of sphere for such a navy (as well as for the British Navy) upon the water frontiers of Canada, and also for a strong defending army upon Canadian territory.

What the changes affecting defence have been since 1814 we touch upon in the next chapter.