Peace, Friendship, and good Understanding – The Treaty of Ghent

By late 1813, President Madison accepted a British offer to begin peace negotiations. The Americans decided on a delegation of five men, mostly prominent politicians representing key regions in the U.S. The American peace delegation consisted of some of the best while the British delegation was less talented. For the British, three commissioners were sent, with the best diplomats being sent to Vienna to negotiate an end to the Napoleonic War.

Both countries began the peace conference in early August 1814 in Ghent, Belgium with hard-line proposals. For the U.S., the Madison administration instructed their delegates to end British impressment, a proposal that was denied outright by the British. Monroe said that the act of impressment was a “degrading practice [that] must cease; our flag must protect the crew; or the United States, cannot consider themselves an independent Nation.” The American delegation was also instructed to get the British to surrender Canada, a difficult proposal since the British possessed more American territory that the U.S. possessed of Canada.

With the defeat of Napoleon in the spring of 1814, the British sent thousands of troops to Canada and the U.S., satisfying public opinion in Britain as many wanted to punish and humble the Americans as aggressors who indirectly supported Napoleon. With news of British reinforcements, Madison instructed the peace delegation to abandon the acquisition of Canada and a stop to impressment; the delegation was instructed to end the war and restore the prewar boundaries.

As the Americans reduced their demands, the British increased theirs. The British sought border adjustments to improve Canada’s defence and they sought the creation of a native buffer zone to include most of the American land between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes. British commanders pushed hard for a native buffer zone since they pledged its creation to gain native allies. 

Negotiations got off to a rough start with both sides refusing to agree to each other’s hard-line proposals. The creation of a native buffer zone proved to be very difficult as the Americans refused outright to its creation. The Americans insisted that there could be no peace until the British abandoned this proposal. One American delegate said that no treaty could restrain the swelling tide of American settlement: “It was opposing a feather to a torrent.”

During the negotiations both sides were overjoyed or saddened when receiving the latest news from North America. Upon reading that Washington was captured by the British, American delegate Henry Clay reported “I tremble, indeed, whenever I take up a late News paper. Hope alone sustains me.” Thankfully for Clay news soon reached him that Baltimore repulsed a British attack and Prevost retreated from Plattsburgh.

Eventually the British dropped their harsh demands in the treaty as negotiations broke down in Vienna. With a potential dangerous situation about to erupt in Europe, the British sought to end the war in North American as quickly as possible. The British abandoned the proposed native buffer zone for vague language that was to protect native rights. The British also abandoned their proposal for American territory and instead settled on status quo ante bellum, which restored prewar boundaries.

On December 24, 1814, the British and American delegations signed the Treaty of Ghent. Both delegations quickly sent the treaty to their respective governments for ratification. Fighting continued into the early months of 1815 and although the treaty did not solve all of the issues that started the War of 1812, it did bring about the beginning of 200 years of peace between nations.

The treaty’s first article states that both countries desire a termination to the war and wish to restore the “principles of perfect reciprocity, Peace, Friendship, and good Understanding;” a principle that continues to this day.

If you want to find out more about the Treaty of Ghent, you can read the full text of the treaty by clicking here. 

Children of Peace – Quakers in York

Before the War of 1812, many people emigrated from the newly formed U.S. due to persecution based on their beliefs. A large number of Quakers, Mennonites and Dunkers moved to Upper Canada due to persecution. During the American Revolution, people from these groups incurred arrests and heavy fines from Patriots who believed they were Loyalists due to their pacifist beliefs.

In Upper Canada, pacifist groups were permitted to practice their faith and were exempt from militia service for an annual fee of five pounds per man and these groups had to provide draft animals, wagons, carts and sleighs on military demand. The Mennonites and Dunkers largely accepted these terms, but the Quakers did not want to contribute to anything that promoted bloodshed. If a man refused to pay the fee or provide draft animals, the government jailed him for a month and seized sufficient property to cover the fine and costs of the sheriff.

David Willson, ca 1866

Many Quakers lived north of York along Yonge Street, a major transportation lane for the movement of military supplies. This meant that the Quakers suffered from a heavy demand for their animals and were in frequent conflict with militia officers. In high demand, many Quakers consented to the military’s demands but some purists formed a group known as the Children of Peace led by David Willson. By the end of the war, at least a quarter of Yonge Street’s Quakers joined the group in search of a spiritual community that resisted demands by the outside world of politics and strife.

After the War of 1812, David Willson’s Children of Peace participated in the turbulent political atmosphere that emerged after the war. Some group members even participated on the side of Mackenzie during the Upper Canada Rebellion. After the failure of the rebellion, the group continued to push for responsible government. After Willson’s death in 1866, the sect continued until the end of the 1880s.  

If you want to know more about religious groups and minorities during the War of 1812, check out Alan Taylor’s book The Civil War of 1812 for more information. 

The gibes of his comrades – The theft of a beehive

Supplying soldiers in the field during a major offensive into enemy territory was difficult in the best of circumstances during the War of 1812. Both armies relied on finding supplies in enemy territory to help sustain their advance, but sometimes outright theft by soldiers proved to be problematic.

During the American advance on the St. Lawrence in November 1813, there were a few incidences of locals, from both the American and Canadian side, complaining to American officers of theft. One incident told by Lieutenant William Worth describes the theft of a beehive by an American soldier. Before the Americans boarded their boats, a local Canadian woman “declared that one of her bee-hives had absconded, and was no doubt then harbored by some of our soldiers,” writes Worth.

A form of punishment in both armies

The colonel of the regiment ordered all the boats searched and upon finding the culprit, he ordered the offending soldier to return the beehive, with this action also serving as his punishment. Worth writes that the colonel “commanded the culprit to take off the blanket, raise the hive on his shoulders, and thus transport it to the place whence it came, some thirty or forty yards off. A few bayonets were at hand to superintend the exact fulfilment of the sentence.”

The culprit carefully unfolded the blanket and raised the hive to his shoulders before running to his destination. Unfortunately, the bees were not happy and “the moment the fold of the blanket were loosened, [the bees] attacked the first flesh and blood to be met with, which was that of the robber’s face and hands.” Upon completing his task, the culprit “returned to the boats almost blind, a good subject for the doctor’s ointment, and the gibes of his comrades.”

With Christmas fast approaching, remember to be weary of greed. This weekend there are more Christmas events taking place in Niagara with McFarland House having a Holiday Tea event and Fort George having their annual Garrison Christmas. Click here for more information.

Pray for me – A soldier’s letters

Keeping in contact with loved ones during the war was very important to soldiers serving in the army. Letters enhanced a soldier’s moral but the lack of letters could also dampen moral, as was evident from Private John Patterson of the 22 U.S. Infantry in the autumn of 1812.

John’s unit was stationed at Lewiston when he wrote to his wife Levina in northern Pennsylvania. In August 1812, John wrote, with erratic spelling, that he was well and that “in about 6 weakes i shall have 16 dollers comeing to me – then i shall be able to cend some home.” When not on duty, Patterson told his wife that he preached the gospel to his comrades and hoped that “you will pray for me – and i hope that the friends will not dispise you or me because i am a souldier.” Reference to “the friends” may indicate that he was a Quaker.

Early war U.S. soldier

Patterson did not receive a letter after a month but did receive a message from his wife via another soldier who was granted leave and visited John’s wife. Levina was not happy that John did not visit, but in a further letter, John explained that he had little money and only some men were allowed furlough.

In October 1812, John wrote another letter saying that he would attempt to get a furlough, but to no avail. By February 1813, John was concerned with his wife’s silence by writing “I have heard nothing from you, this is the forth letter sence i have been at niagary and i want to hear from home and how you are.” Two months later, John still heard no word from Levina. He wrote complaining that he had not received a letter and that his comrades receive letters once a week from a much greater distance away.

Unfortunately, a few weeks later Private John Patterson died from illness. It is not know if his family received his last letter, but in it, he included a description of himself “standing guard five miles out of the fort in sight of the british farmes and their buildings.” If Levina Patterson received the letter, she would be left with an image of her husband on duty within view of the enemy, alone.

This weekend you can head to McFarland House in Niagara-on-the-Lake for their annual Christmas event. The house will have period decorations in partnership with the Garden Club of Niagara and the Rotary Club of Niagara-on-the-Lake. In addition, you can head out to Fort Erie for the showing of “A Canadian Christmas Carole.” Click here for more details.

Calm, practical, orderly and considerate – Jacob Brown

Jacob Brown was born in Bucks County, Pa. in 1775. His early career was as a schoolmaster and surveyor. In 1799, he purchased a patch of land with his father in Black River County, Northern N.Y., and spent 39 years developing the town of Brownville. His prominence in the community led to a commission in the state militia as a brigadier-general. Brown was described as calm, practical, orderly and considerate. He was further described as being above average height, not always able to control his quick temper, and sometimes his determination would turn to withdrawing even in good circumstances.

When the War of 1812 started, Brown was a militia commander in northern N.Y. State. Brown managed to get more out of citizen soldiers than other militia commanders. He impressed many people with his defence of Ogdensburg, N.Y. in October 1812. He also impressed his superiors with his actions in the defence of Sackets Harbor in May 1813. His actions at Sackets Harbor led to a commission in the regular army where he was soon promoted to major-general.

In 1814, Brown was given command of the American forces along the Niagara River, known as the Left Division. On July 3, 1814, Brown and his army crossed the Niagara, captured Fort Erie, and fought the battles of Chippawa and Lundy’s Lane. At Lundy’s Lane Brown was wounded by a musket ball that passed through his right inner thigh ‘very high up.’ Shortly thereafter Brown was wounded again when he was struck on the left side. He was forced to turn command over to Brigadier-General Eleazer Ripley.

Brown spent his convalescence with friends near Buffalo, and was attended by a personal surgeon and his wife. Two weeks after being wounded he was able to walk and spent most of his time trying to gain reinforcements for the troops under siege at Fort Erie. Brown retook command of the Left Division in early September when Brigadier-General Edmund Gaines was wounded at Fort Erie.

After the war, Brown and Ripley continued their feud that emerged during the Niagara 1814 campaign. Later in life, Brown was marred by financial and physical problems. His business ventures went sour and he eventually died in 1828 at the age of 53 from a stroke.

If you want to find out more about Jacob Brown and the Niagara 1814 Campaign, there are a number of good books available. Don Graves newest book And All Their Glory Past, along with Richard Barbuto’s Niagara 1814: America Invades Canada, give a good overview of Brown and the Niagara 1814 Campaign from a British/Canadian and American perspective.

Good, honest, industrious women – Army laundresses

Women attached to both the American and British armies received daily rations but were expected to contribute to their regiment. These army wives often performed nursing duties but there were a number of different jobs available. One lucrative position for these women included acting as laundresses since this service was in constant demand.

In the U.S. Army, women were paid local rates and were responsible for ensuring that the washhouse was kept clean. Laundresses were often the wives of senior enlisted men and frequently had a considerable amount of work to perform since American regulations stated that soldiers “will not wear their Fatigue Frock & Trowsers more than three Days without washing.”

Company commanders ensured that every woman had a fair proportion of washing so that the needs of the garrison were not neglected and to avoid complaints from some woman that others received more work and pay. Army regulations were firmly enforced and any transgressors were turned out of the garrison and “not suffered to enter it again.” It appears that some laundresses were dishonest and of a questionable moral character but the majority were, as one American general wrote, “good, honest, industrious” women “ever-ready for a fight, yet kind of heart in a rough manner, always ready to assist in times of distress.”

As for British laundresses, a popular military treatise published before the War of 1812 set out important guidelines. It stated methods for women to do their work properly and that these women be punctually paid so that they could perform their job correctly. Senior officers were permitted to set the price for laundry work and in one location, the going rate was two pence halfpenny (about four cents) for each shirt washed. Considering that private soldiers made about 20 cents per day, army wives could potentially earn more money than their husbands could. However, the fixed price could not be changed, and any woman “refusing to wash for the above sum will be struck off the rations.”

No matter what job army women performed during the war, their task was difficult and challenging. If you want to learn more about women in the 19th century, head to the Battlefield House Museum in Stoney Creek this Saturday for their Jane Austen event. Click here for more information. 

Distressed for many days – the last duel fought in Canada

During the war, John Norton and his warriors played a pivotal role in defending Niagara and Upper Canada. When the War of 1812 ended, John Norton and his wife Catherine sailed for Britain in the summer of 1815. The couple first went to Scotland where Catharine took English lessons and by many accounts she was a “very keen student” who could “hardly be prevailed on to quit her Spelling book and writing for anything else.”

In 1816, the Nortons returned to Upper Canada and settled on the Grand River where John Norton received his land grant for retired officers. John and Catharine’s life together appeared to be going well until 1823 when their life together ended. John Norton writes that a young man, who he fostered from childhood and who fought with him during the war, had “offered her [Catharine] the grossest insult a woman can receive.” Apparently, Catharine had succumbed to the young man’s charms, causing John to force both Catharine and her lover to leave the property.

John Norton

The young man returned to John’s home and challenged him to a duel. Pistols were chosen as the weapon for the duel, John Norton writes, “I told him that when he took aim at me and I saw him ready to fire I would treat him as I did my enemies.” John Norton shot and killed the man. “When I saw the poor young man stretched on the ground and the recollections of past times crowded into my mind,” John Norton writes, “pity succeeded to every other feeling and to a much higher degree; I was so much distressed for many days.”

After the “last duel fought in Canada,” as it became known, ended John Norton decided to turn himself in, was found guilty of manslaughter and fined £25 and discharged. Norton refused to see Catharine again but left her a share of his pension. Catharine wrote Norton begging his forgiveness, but Norton refused to see her. Norton decided to head for American territory where he is believed to have died in the 1830s.

As for Catharine, she made her way to Fairfield on the Thames River where missionaries reported that she died in 1827. The woman described by John Norton to be beautiful and the apple of her husband’s eye had become by one account a “dirty old squaw.”

If you want to find out more about John Norton, you can read his journal online. Click here for the website.