United States:
As a United States congressman and then as Jefferson's Secretary of State, he argued that British commercial and maritime policies should be countered with retaliatory tariffs and trade restrictions. He urged Jefferson to adopt a complete embargo against international trade in 1807.
As president, Madison continued to support aggressive trade measures against Britain and requested a declaration of war against Great Britain in 1812 when commercial pressure failed to achieve a change in British policy.
During the War of 1812, Madison faced almost treasonous opposition from merchants and public officials in New England. But he refused to limit civil liberties or declare martial law, as he was urged to do by supporters.
- James Madison
As a United States congressman and then as Jefferson's Secretary of State, he argued that British commercial and maritime policies should be countered with retaliatory tariffs and trade restrictions. He urged Jefferson to adopt a complete embargo against international trade in 1807.
As president, Madison continued to support aggressive trade measures against Britain and requested a declaration of war against Great Britain in 1812 when commercial pressure failed to achieve a change in British policy.
During the War of 1812, Madison faced almost treasonous opposition from merchants and public officials in New England. But he refused to limit civil liberties or declare martial law, as he was urged to do by supporters.
- Henry Dearborn A doctor by profession, Henry Dearborn was another veteran of the War of Independence who failed to shine during the War of 1812.
Commander of the northern border with Canada, Dearborn failed miserably and his strategic move against his northern neighbour was a disaster.
But, while General William Hull was almost shot for his surrender of Detroit, Dearborn - his commander - was initially sacked, but almost given the job of Minister of War in 1815.
He went on to be America's ambassador to Portugal. - Jacob Brown Jacob Jennings Brown was born in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on 9 May 1775. His parents were Quakers. He supervised a school at Crosswicks, New Jersey when he was 18 years old, and then turned to surveying in Ohio from 1796 to 1798.
After briefly serving as an aide to Major General Alexander Hamilton, Brown founded the village of Brownville on Lake Ontario in New York. He married Pamelia Williams in 1802. He served in the state legislature and as a county judge until 1809. In that year, he became a colonel of militia. In 1811, he was promoted to brigadier general and a year later he was made a major general.
During the War of 1812, Brown commanded the Oswego-Lake St. Francis section of New York before he became a brigadier general in the Regular Army. Soon he became a major general and defeated the British at Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane. Severely wounded at Lundy’s Lane, he received a gold medal from Congress for his actions in the war.
Brown was the senior officer in the Army from 15 June 1815 to 24 February 1828. In 1821, he assumed the title of commanding general of the Army. While he served as the commanding general, he urged pay incentives to encourage reenlistments, pay increases for noncommissioned officers, and occasional centralized unit training to avert deterioration in scattered units. Brown died in Washington, D.C., on 24 February 1828. - Winfield ScottWinfield Scott was born near Petersburg, Virginia. He attended the College of William and Mary, but did not graduate. He briefly studied law, but gave up on that profession to enter the army in 1808. A long and highly distinguished military career followed.
In the War of 1812, Scott served as a lieutenant colonel in Canada; he was captured by the British at Queenston Heights and detained a year before being released in a prisoner exchange. Scott resumed his duties, was promoted to brigadier general in March 1814, and played a major role at Lundy’s Lane where he was seriously wounded. Following the war, Scott traveled in Europe and and studied military tactics. - William Henry Harrison Born at Berkeley Plantation, VA on February 9, 1773, William Henry Harrison was the son of Benjamin Harrison V and Elizabeth Bassett. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, Harrison was politically well-connected and ensured that his son received a proper education. At age fourteen, William Henry was sent to Hampden-Sydney College where his studied history and the classics.
- William Hull William Hull was born in Massachusetts in 1753. Before the War of 1812 he made a reputation through his exploits during the Revolutionary War. During the war he rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and was then appointed Governor of the Michigan Territory by President Thomas Jefferson in 1805.
As Governor, Hull’s main objectives were to expand the Michigan Territory by securing land concessions from the First Nations. As a result of his actions, he angered many of the First Nations within the region which contributed many of those First Nations to join the First Nations Confederacy under Tecumseh.
By February 1812, the United States were making plans in Congress for war with Great Britain, which would include an invasion of Canada. At first Hull declined the appointing of himself as Brigadier General in charge of all the forces of the Northwest, however after the second choice, Colonel Kingsbury, fell ill he accepted it.
His first orders were to go to Ohio to raise an army, as Ohio’s governor had been commanded with raising a militia that would form the core of this force. After this had been done, he was told to march the army to Detroit where he would continue to serve as the Governor of the Territory.
The United States declared war on Great Britain June 18th, 1812. That same day General Hull received two letters informing of this, however, they were not received until July 2nd. This led to the schooner Cuyahuga’s capture, as it was poorly protected and the commander at Fort Amherstburg had already heard of the declaration.
Hull decided to invade Canada on July 12th, 1812. On Canadian soil, Hull issued a proclamation.
“INHABITANTS OF CANADA! After thirty years of Peace and prosperity, the united States have been driven to Arms. The injuries and aggressions, the insults and indignities of Great Britain have once more left them no alternative but manly resistance or unconditional submission. The army under my Command has invaded your Country and the standard of the United States waves on the territory of Canada. To the peaceful, unoffending inhabitant, It brings neither danger nor difficulty. I come to find enemies not to make them, I come to protect you not to injure you.
Separated by an immense ocean and an extensive Wilderness from Great Britain you have no participation in her counsels no interest in her conduct. You have felt her Tyranny, you have seen her injustice, but I do not ask you to avenge the one or redress the other. The United States are sufficiently powerful to afford you every security consistent with their rights and your expectations. I tender you the invaluable blessings of Civil, Political, and Religious Liberty, and their necessary result, individual and general, prosperity: That liberty which gave decision to our counsels and energy to our conduct in our struggle for INDEPENDENCE and which conducted us safely and triumphantly thro’ the stormy period of the Revolution…
In the name of my Country and by the authority of my Government I promise protection to your persons, property and rights Remain at your homes, Pursue your peaceful and customary avocations. Raise not your hands against your brethern, many of your fathers fought for the freedom and Independence we now enjoy Being children therefore of the same family with us, and heirs to the same Heritage, the arrival of an army of Friends must be hailed by you with a cordial welcome, You will be emancipated from Tyranny and oppression and restored to the dignified status of freemen…If contrary to your own interest and the just expectation of my country, you should take part in the approaching contest, you will be considered and treated as enemies and the horrors, and calamities of War will stalk before you.
If the barbarous and Savage policy of great Britain be pursued, and the savages are let loose to murder our Citizens and butcher our women and children, this war, will be a war of extermination.
The first stroke with the Tomahawk the first attempt with the Scalping Knife will be the signal for one indiscriminate scene of desolation, No white man found fighting by the Side of an Indian will be taken prisoner Instant destruction will be his Lot…..
I doubt not your courage and firmness; I will not doubt your attachment to Liberty. If you tender your services voluntarily they will be accepted readily.
The United States offers you Peace, Liberty and Security your choice lies between these and War, Slavery, and destruction, Choose then, but choose wisely; and may he who knows the justice of our cause, and who holds in his hand the fate of Nations, guide you to a result the most compatible, with your rights and interests, your peace and prosperity.”
The proclamation helped stiffen resistance to the American attacks. Hull’s army was too weak in artillery therefore in Sandwich, Ontario, Hull waited for reinforcements so he could properly siege Fort Amherstburg. Meanwhile, he learned that Fort Michilimackinac had fallen to the British and that British Major General Isaac Brock was marching to Amherstburg. Hull’s supply lines were also being ambushed by the First Nations, led by Tecumseh. He therefore drew back his forces to Fort Detroit.
On August 16th, 1812, while William Hull was within Fort Detroit, British Major General Brock marched and began preparations to besiege Detroit. Hull was a victim of Brock’s deceptions as Brock’s cunning stratagems had made it seem that Hull was outnumbered and that his First Nation allies could not be controlled. Rather than going into battle, Hull surrendered Fort Detroit to Brock, who was actually outnumbered, along with two thousand soldiers and near thirty pieces of artillery.
As a result of his actions, Brigadier General Hull faced a court martial board during the winter of 1814-1815. Hull was charged with cowardice, neglect of duty, and treason. The board exonerated him on the charge of treason. He was sentenced to death but recommended that President Madison grant him clemency due to his accomplishments during the Revolutionary War and due to his age. President Madison did so, and Hull was granted clemency. He was dismissed from the army and retired to Massachusetts where he died in 1825.
- Brock Roger Hale SheaffeMajor-General Sir Roger Hale Sheaffe was an American born British officer who briefly came to prominence during the War of 1812. He was born in Boston in 1763, twelve years before the outbreak of the War of Independence, the son of William Sheaffe, the deputy collector of customs at Boston. Sheaffe’s father died in 1771, and his mother opened a Boston boarding house. During the war Sheaffe became a protégé of Hugh Percy, Earl Percy, who had his headquarters in the boarding house.
Percy took a direct hand in Sheaffe’s military career, first sending him to sea, then to Lochée’s military academy in Chelsea and then in 1778 buying him an ensigncy, the essential first step on any military career at the time. Percy continued to fund Sheaffe’s career, helping him to buy his lieutenancy in the 5th foot in 1780. Percy was the colonel of this regiment, in which Sheaffe would serve until 1797, when he purchased a majority in the 81st Regiment. Sheaffe had an active military career, serving in Ireland from 1781 to 1787 and in Canada from 1787 until 1797. In 1798 he became lieutenant-colonel of the 49th Regiment. With that regiment he fought in Holland from August to November 1799 and in the Baltic from March to July 1801 before returning to Canada in 1802, serving as Major-General Isaac Brock’s immediate subordinate from 1803. Other than a short break from October 1811 to July 1812 (spend on leave in Britain) Sheaffe would spend the rest of his active military career in Canada.
At the start of the War of 1812 Sheaffe was sent to Upper Canada to assist Brock. Once there he was sent to the Niagara front, one of the areas expected to be vulnerable to an American attack. Upper Canada was considered to be vulnerable to simultaneous American attacks from Detroit and across the Niagara River. In the event the Americans failed to coordinate their attacks, and the Detroit campaign failed before commanders on the Niagara front were ready to move. Knowing this, on 20 August Sheaffe agreed to an American suggestion not to reinforce any post to the west of Niagara without four days notice.
Having removed the threat from Detroit, Brock them took over on the Niagara Front, with Sheaffe as his second in command. The American attack finally came on 13 October. American forces under the command of Stephan van Rensselaer crossed the Niagara River at Queenston, capturing the heights above the village. Brock rushed to the scene where he organised and led a desperate counterattack directly up the front of the heights. During this attack he was shot and killed, as was his aide-de-camp.
This left Sheaffe in command. He arrived from Fort George at about noon, and led a much more organised counterattack. Rather than attack directly up the heights, he moved his men through the woods on the American left flank, and launched an attack along the top of the heights which caught the Americans by surprise. After a short fight the American force surrendered. Sheaffe was rewarded for his efforts with a baronetcy, and the command of Upper Canada.
His high military reputation only lasted until April 1813. That month the Americans launched an attack on York, the capital of Upper Canada. The town was poorly defended, and Sheaffe only had command of around 800 men, while the American attack was made by 1,700 men, under the overall command of General Henry Dearborn. The Americans landed west of the town on 27 April. Sheaffe did not organise his counterattack well, feeding units into the battle piecemeal, and he was soon forced back towards the town. Having been pushed back to the weak fort west of York, Sheaffe decided to retreat back towards Kingston with his surviving regular troops, while the local militia commander were left to negotiate a surrender. He was later to be criticised for his conduct of the battle, and for not having made enough effort to enthuse his men, although as he was outnumbered by around two to one and the town lacked any real fortifications there was very little he could have done to successfully defend the place.
In June 1813 General Prevost decided to remove Sheaffe from Upper Canada. Prevost wrote to the Duke of York to explain that “circumstances indicating an insufficiency on the part of Major General Sir R. H. Sheaffe to the arduous task of defending Upper Canada” had led to his replacement by Major General Francis de Rottenburg. Sheaffe had certainly lost the confidence of some vocal elements of Upper Canadian society, who felt that he had mishandled the defence of York, but he did receive the praise of the executive council of Upper Canada when he was replaced.
After leaving Upper Canada Sheaffe was posted to Montreal. He was still there in October 1813 when the Americans briefly threatened to attack the city from both the St. Lawrence and from Lake Champlain. Before Prevost arrived to take command he called out 3,000 militia, and later had command of the reserve while Major-General de Watteville commanded at the frontier. Soon after this the British command structure was rearranged once again, and De Rottenburg took over at Montreal. This time Sheaffe returned to Britain, leaving Canada in November 1813.
This ended Sheaffe’s active career, although not his promotions. He was made colonel of the 36th Regiment on 20 December 1829 and promoted to general on 28 June 1838. From 1817 until his death in 1851 he spent most of his time in Edinburgh. He had been a capable commander during the War of 1812. At Queenston he displayed a cool head, and his willingness to take the time to outflank the American position helped restore a dangerous position. At York there was very little he could have done to prevent an American victory against overwhelming odds. - Gordon Drummond DRUMMOND,rning of York (modern Toronto) in 1813.
Ross then was persuaded to attack Baltimore, Maryland. His troops landed at the southern tip of the Patapsco Neck peninsula at North Point, twelve miles from the city, on the morning of September 12, 1814. On route to what would be the Battle of North Point, a part of the larger Battle of Baltimore, the British encountered American skirmishers and Ross rode forward to personally direct his troops. An American sniper shot him through the right arm into the chest. According to Baltimore tradition, two American riflemen, Daniel Wells and Henry McComas, aged 18 and 19, respectively, were credited with killing Ross. Ross died while being transported back to the fleet.
After his death, the general's body was stored in a barrel of 129 gallons (586 l) of Jamaican rum aboard HMS Tonnant. When she was diverted to New Orleans for the forthcoming battle, the body was later shipped on the British ship HMS Royal Oak to Halifax, Nova Scotia where his body was interred on September 29, 1814 in the Old Burying Ground.
He is commemorated by a 100 ft granite obelisk near the shoreline of Carlingford Lough in the Ross home village of Rostrevor, County Down in Northern Ireland as well as by a monument in St. Paul's Cathedral, London.
Neither Ross or his immediate descendants were knighted or received a title of nobility. However, his descendants were given an augmentation of honour to the Ross armorial bearings (namely, a second crest in which an arm is seen grasping the stars and stripes on a broken staff) and the family name was changed to the victory title Ross-of-Bladensburg, which was granted to his widow.
In honour of Washington DC's history there is also a portrait of Ross in the capital's rotunda. - Edward Pakenham Sir Edward Michael Pakenham was a promising young general who might have been a hero of the Napoleonic Wars if he hadn’t been killed in action, leading his countrymen in their attempt to invade New Orleans in 1815.
Pakenham was born into a life of priveledge as an Irish aristocrat. Like many young men of his station, Pakenham purchased a commission as a lieutenant in the Royal Army at only 16 years of age. However he proved to be a very capable leader, distinguishing himself in battles in the West Indies and early in the Napoleonic Wars. Wounded twice through this travails, and brother-in-law to another famous general, the Duke of Wellington, he earned the respect of troops and was reported to be generally liked by soldiers and officers alike.
His tactical expertise and successes earned him a promotion to general in 1814 at age 36, and an appointment to command the British forces in North America in the war against the United States. Although personally opposed to Britain’s involvement in the war, Pakenham was the consummate gentleman and eminently dedicated to his post, and so headed to the United States dutifully, but tragically.
When he arrived to lead an army to invade the important trading port of New Orleans, he was appalled by Andrew Jackson’s decision to send troops in the middle of the night to raid the British camp. Preferring what he thought to be more noble warfare of open field sieges, he arranges his men to attack New Orleans in two flanks in early January 1815.
Underestimating the power of the American guns, this decision turns out to be disastrous. In the 30-minute Battle of New Orleans, Pakenham was first hit by grapeshot, killing his horse and wounding him in the knee. As he rose from the battlefield to mount another horse and continue riding forward he was hit in the arm. The final shot proved fatal, hitting him in the chest. Sir Edward Michael Pakenham died on the battlefield, shortly after giving the order to call forward the reserves and keep pushing toward New Orleans.
Pakenham’s body was shipped back to Ireland to be interred in a family cemetery. A generation after his death, Pakenham was remembered in an essay written by his subordinate officers at the Battle of New Orleans, published in the 1941: “in the discharge of his duty to his king and country, so eminently upheld the character of a true British soldier.” - Charles de Salabery Tecumseh IRUMBERRY DE SALABERRY, CHARLES-MICHEL D’, army and militia officer, politician, seigneur, office holder, and jp; b. 19 Nov. 1778 in Beauport, Que., eldest son of Ignace-Michel-Louis-Antoine d’irumberry de Salaberry and Françoise-Catherine Hertel de Saint-François; m. 13 May 1812 Marie-Anne-Julie Hertel de Rouville, daughter of Jean-Baptiste-Melchior Hertel* de Rouville, in Chambly, Lower Canada, and they had four sons and three daughters; d. there 27 Feb. 1829.
Charles-Michel d’Irumberry de Salaberry enlisted at the age of 14 as a volunteer in the 44th Foot. In 1794, through Prince Edward* Augustus, a family friend, he received an ensign’s commission in a battalion of the 60th Foot stationed in the West Indies. After his arrival on 28 July that year, he distinguished himself by his bravery in the invasions of the French colonies of Saint-Domingue, Guadeloupe, and Martinique. During this time the prince, having become commander of the military forces in the Maritime colonies, undertook to obtain a lieutenancy for him in his own regiment, the 7th Foot, which was stationed at Halifax. On learning that Salaberry had already been promoted to that rank in the 60th, where advancement was swifter, he asked for the appointment to the 7th to be cancelled and in the interim had him sent home to Lower Canada on leave.
Salaberry’s readmission to the 60th came through too late for him to sail for the West Indies. After being shipwrecked on St John’s (Prince Edward) Island he was detained at Halifax, in the prince’s service. The prince initiated him into freemasonry, and on 2 Feb. 1797 Salaberry was installed as master of Royal Rose Lodge No.2. From March till the end of June he served as a lieutenant on the Asia, which was chasing Spanish ships. He returned to the West Indies at the beginning of July and was garrisoned in Jamaica. Although the prince recommended him several times for a captaincy, Salaberry, who did not have the means to buy the commission, had to wait until the end of 1799 to receive the rank of captain-lieutenant, without a company, in the 60th Foot. On 18 June 1803 he finally obtained a company in the 1st battalion.
In 1804 Salaberry asked the prince – now the Duke of Kent – to use his influence to get him sick leave; he arrived at Quebec on 24 October. On 26 June of the following year he sailed for England with his brothers Maurice-Roch and François-Louis, both of whom had been promoted lieutenant in the duke’s regiment. The three were warmly received at home by Edward Augustus and his companion, Mme de Saint-Laurent [Montgenet], and the duke immediately took steps to have Salaberry exchanged into a different regiment to spare him another tour of duty in the West Indies. In the mean time Edward got several weeks’ leave for him, gave him lodging, invited him to supper every day, and let him use his box at the theatre.
Early in 1806 Salaberry was transferred to the 5th battalion of the 60th Foot, under Colonel Francis de Rottenburg. At the duke’s request he conducted recruiting in Britain for the 1st Foot between July 1806 and March 1807. Major-General Sir George Prevost* created difficulties for him, but to the duke’s great pleasure he none the less succeeded in enlisting more than 150 men. In August 1806 the youngest Salaberry brother, Édouard-Alphonse*, arrived in England. The Salaberrys met only a few times, however, since Maurice-Roch and François-Louis left for India on 18 April 1807. For his part, Charles-Michel was called to Ireland in August. In 1808 he was appointed brigade-major of the light infantry brigade commanded by Rottenburg which in 1809 was dispatched to the Netherlands. Like a number of his comrades, Salaberry caught a contagious fever in that disastrous campaign and returned to England in October. He was transferred back to the 60th Foot, 1st battalion, and in June 1810 learned that he would soon be leaving for the Canadas. There, in the autumn, he became aide-de-camp to Major-General Rottenburg.
On 2 July 1811 Salaberry was promoted brevet major. Seven months later, with the international situation pointing to the imminence of war, he put forward a plan to set up a militia corps, the Voltigeurs Canadiens. In the circumstances Prevost, who had become governor-in-chief in October 1811, could only commend Salaberry, who had the influence, zeal, and energy to raise a corps of volunteers and turn it quickly into an efficient and competent unit. Salaberry began recruiting for this “Provincial Corps of Light Infantry” on 15 April 1812.
Obtaining experienced officers for the militia was not easy, since a man’s absence from his regiment held up his promotion in the army. Furthermore, a militia officer was subordinate to an officer of the regular army holding the same rank – hence Salaberry’s anger when Prevost commissioned him a lieutenant-colonel in the militia, effective 1 April 1812, instead of giving him an army rank. But on 29 Jan. 1813 Rottenburg informed him that he was to have a supervisory function in the Voltigeurs Canadiens with the rank of Lieutenant-colonel in the army. When, contrary to expectations, this rank was not confirmed, Salaberry had to be satisfied with receiving that of lieutenant-colonel of the Voltigeurs Canadiens, on 25 March 1813. Confirmation that he had the same rank in the army did not come until July 1814. Although the militia was subordinate to the army, some army officers insisted upon being taken on in the Voltigeurs Canadiens. They did so for two reasons: the virtual certainty of the militia unit becoming a regular army unit and their rank being recognized, and the desire of some to retire from the army with a militia officer’s salary added to their half pay. Salaberry was thus able to obtain several experienced officers.
At the beginning the recruitment of militiamen succeeded beyond all hopes, on account of the economic crisis, Salaberry’s reputation, and the fact that the Select Embodied Militia had not yet been raised. Notwithstanding the claims sometimes made, exaggerated notions that Salaberry deserves all the credit for recruiting and that the unit was raised in two days are not tenable. In April 1812 the target was a corps of 500, but Prevost reduced the number to 350 in June, and to 300 the next month. In fact, financial circumstances did not permit the Voltigeurs Canadiens and the Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles to be raised at the same time. With 264 men recruited in the first three weeks, enlistment promised to be easy. But the harshness of military life apparently led many discouraged recruits to desert, for numbers dropped from 323 in June to 270 in October. Salaberry had difficulty mustering 438 men in March 1813. Nevertheless, at the battle of Châteauguay the following October the Voltigeurs Canadiens had 29 officers and 481 non-commissioned officers and men.
Salaberry was a strict and conscientious commander. His officers did not always possess the same qualities. Jacques Viger*, a captain who was later to retain his company through Salaberry’s intervention, often regretted his commission, complaining of the severe discipline and the onerous financial charges that the officers had to assume. Salaberry’s brother-in-law, Jean-Baptiste-René Hertel* de Rouville, who was also a captain in the Voltigeurs Canadiens, begged the adjutant general of militia to transfer him to another regiment because he found his commanding officer too demanding.
On 18 June 1812 the United States had declared war on Great Britain, and the Americans were making ready to invade the Canadas. To defend Lower Canada, in May the government had conscripted the men to form four battalions of Select Embodied Militia; a fifth was created in September, and another in February 1813. The sedentary militia took training and on occasion was called up. Besides the Voltigeurs Canadiens a number of voluntary militia units were raised, sometimes for brief periods. In November 1812 an attempted invasion near Lacolle brought the Voltigeurs Canadiens into action. On 27 November Salaberry was praised for his conduct in commanding the advance guard. But in July 1813 he learned that Prevost had sent the British government a dispatch on the events making no mention of his name and congratulating the adjutant general, Edward Baynes, and Major-General Rottenburg, who had taken no part in the action.
Early in August the Voltigeurs Canadiens covered the withdrawal of the British ships sent to burn the barracks in Swanton, Vt, two blockhouses at Champlain, N.Y., and the barracks and arsenal north of Plattsburgh. In October Salaberry was sent to Four Corners, near Châteauguay, with a handful of soldiers and some Indians to reconnoitre the enemy forces and attack. However, there were not enough men and the plan fell through.
Disappointed with the missions being given him, Salaberry wanted to leave the army. But then he was summoned to proceed in all haste from Châteauguay with his troops to the river of that name. The Americans were preparing to attack Montreal in order to cut off the British army in Upper Canada. On 21 October Major-General Wade Hampton crossed the border at the head of some 3,000 men and advanced up the Châteauguay towards Montreal, which he and Major-General James Wilkinson, who was coming down the St Lawrence from Sackets Harbor, N.Y., were to attack.
Having foreseen that the enemy would cross the Châteauguay at Allan’s Corners, on the east bank, Salaberry had an abatis thrown up at the spot. There he placed about 250 of the Voltigeurs Canadiens, the sedentary militia, and the Canadian Fencibles, along with some Indians. He sent 50 men from the sedentary militia and from the 3rd battalion of the Select Embodied Militia across the river. A mile behind the abatis about 1,400 militiamen under Lieutenant-Colonel George Richard John Macdonell* were divided among four entrenchments one behind the other.
When he reached Ormstown, some miles from the abatis, Hampton split his troops; he sent about 1,000 men across the Châteauguay and himself advanced with 1,000 or so, leaving a like number in reserve at his encampment. The American troops did not manage to surprise Salaberry’s militiamen. By shrewd tactics Salaberry had succeeded in creating the illusion that his force was much stronger than it actually was and thus discouraged the enemy. After about four hours of fighting on 26 October, Hampton ordered his troops to retreat. The Canadians remained at the abatis, ready to resume combat the following day. But Hampton, who had received orders to take up winter quarters in American territory, thought that his superior, Major-General Wilkinson, had called off the attack on Montreal, and he moved his troops back towards the United States. His actions were based on a misunderstanding, but having learned of Hampton’s defeat and withdrawal, Wilkinson did not want to attack Montreal. The battle of Châteauguay therefore saved that town from a large-scale attack [see Joseph Wanton Morrison].
Salaberry’s superior, Major-General Abraham Ludwig Karl von Wattenwyl*, and Prevost arrived at the same time to observe the enemy’s retreat. After the battle, relying on prisoners’ estimates, the Canadians thought they had faced 6–7,000 Americans. In reality some 3,000 Americans had met about 1,700 Canadians. According to Prevost’s report, written on the day itself, about 300 Canadians had opposed 7,500 Americans. From that time, the battle of Châteauguay took on a legendary character and became a source of popular pride: the Canadians, commanded by one of their own, had displayed their bravery, their military capacity, and their loyalty in repelling the Americans.
If people found reasons for pride in Prevost’s general order, Salaberry saw in it an intention to cheat him of credit for the victory. Indeed, Prevost said that he himself had been present at the battle and gave Wattenwyl credit for the strategy employed. Humiliated and denied his rights, Salaberry made innumerable attempts to obtain recognition from the authorities and a promotion in the army. But confronted with the attitudes taken by Prevost and by the Lower Canadian parliament, which in the absence of the governor’s assent, did not dare give the usual expression of thanks, Salaberry, who was tired and ill, enquired at the end of 1813 about the terms for retirement from the army. He asked his father to moderate his ambitions for him: he could never become a general officer, because he was a Catholic and because advancement would require 10 or 12 years’ more experience. In January 1814 he offered his commission to Frederick George Heriot* for £900. After finally receiving the thanks of the House of Assembly on 30 January and those of the Legislative Council on 25 February, he was still thinking of retiring when he learned on 3 March that Prevost was to recommend him for appointment as inspecting field officer of militia. This promotion promised monetary gain and interesting work. He left the Voltigeurs Canadiens with some regrets, and Heriot replaced him in his command.
In a letter of 15 March Prevost did indeed recommend Salaberry for appointment as inspecting field officer, but in a confidential report dated 13 May he disparaged him, accused him of negligence, and claimed that he had only been carrying out Wattenwyl’s orders; in so doing he robbed him of any credit for the victory at Châteauguay. Salaberry had, then, good reason to be wary of Prevost’s duplicity, and the appointment was not confirmed. Therefore, having carried out the duties for several months, he sent in his resignation. It was intercepted by the Duke of Kent, to the good fortune of Salaberry, who continued to receive an army lieutenant-colonel’s pay. He retained his appointment as inspecting field officer, and also remained lieutenant-colonel of the Voltigeurs Canadiens, his service being interrupted by a 42-day stint on the court martial of Henry Procter. The war ended on 24 Dec. 1814, but the news did not reach the colony until the spring. The militia was demobilized in March 1815. Once the troops had been discharged, Salaberry turned his attention for several months to obtaining his own pay; he also took steps on behalf of the militiamen entitled to payments and the wounded who were to receive compensation.
In 1816 Salaberry received a medal commemorating the battle of Châteauguay. Then, on 5 June 1817, he learned that as result of a recommendation from Sir Gordon Drummond* and Macdonell’s friendly intervention, he had been made a companion of the Order of the Bath. In December, Governor Sir John Coape Sherbrooke recommended him to replace Jean-Baptiste-Melchior Hertel de Rouville, his father-in-law, on the Legislative Council. His appointment dated from December 1818, and he took his seat on 19 Feb. 1819. His father was already a member of the council and thus, for the first time, a father and son served together on it.
In 1814 Salaberry had gone to live in Chambly. In July the Hertel de Rouvilles gave the Salaberrys some land near the military reserve. Then Salaberry’s father handed over to him the 2,000 livres that his godfather, vicar general Charles-Régis Des Bergères de Rigauville, had bequeathed him. Salaberry therefore found himself in possession of a sizeable estate; he managed it conscientiously, claiming compensation for the depredations his lands had been subjected to during the war and bringing lawsuits against several of his neighbours and censitaires to establish the boundaries of his lands and full possession of them.
The death of Pierre-Amable De Bonne* in 1816 enabled Salaberry to add to his fortune, since his mother-in-law, Marie-Anne Hervieux, was a relative of the judge. Having conferred power of attorney on her son and son-in-law to get possession of De Bonne’s estate, she handed the property over to them and to her daughter in March 1817. This gift was made not long before Jean-Baptiste-Melchior Hertel de Rouville’s death on 30 Nov. 1817, which was followed by his wife’s on 25 Jan. 1819. Management of their estate was entrusted to Salaberry. Salaberry’s wife had inherited the fief of Saint-Mathias, and on 5 Nov. 1819 Salaberry bought the adjoining fief of Beaulac from William Yule. Salaberry’s brother-in-law, who was in financial difficulties, sold him and his wife part of his inheritance, including the flour-mill at Saint-Mathias. In January 1818 Salaberry had bought the rights on the part of the king’s domain located in the seigneury from Samuel Jacobs, who was the seigneur of part of Chambly. Finally, when Jacobs went bankrupt in 1825, he bought his land and so was able to extend his own property. He profited from his holdings and in addition lent money.
Salaberry was also interested in transportation. With his friend and neighbour Samuel Hatt and several merchants and private individuals from the Richelieu region he founded a company in October 1820 to build the steamship De Salaberry. It was launched on 3 Aug. 1821, to ply between Quebec, Montreal, and Chambly. On 12 June 1823 the ship burned off Cap-Rouge; six or seven people perished and an extremely valuable cargo was lost.
In 1815 Salaberry had been appointed a justice of the peace for the District of Quebec. He received a similar commission for the districts of Montreal, Trois-Rivières, and Saint-François in 1821, and for the district of Gaspé in 1824. On 14 May 1817 he had been given responsibility for improving communications in Devon County, being named commissioner of roads and bridges. Although he was an illustrious member of the Legislative Council, he was more conspicuous by his absence than by his participation. He supported the petition against the Union Bill of 1822, but in 1824 he wrote to Viger that he expected the union of Upper and Lower Canada to come about.
That year Viger, who had become a friend of his former commander, undertook to raise a subscription to have an engraving done of Salaberry, “whose name is already part of history.” The engraver, Asher Brown Durand of New York, did the portrait from a miniature by New York artist Anson Dickinson.
Salaberry was a man of impetuous temperament Rottenburg called him “my dear Gunpowder.” He was also pleasant, straightforward, and warmhearted. Stricken by an attack of apoplexy while supping at Hatt’s, he died on 27 Feb. 1829.
The name of Charles-Michel d’Irumberry de Salaberry was, however, not to be forgotten. His role in the battle of Châteauguay, much disputed even during his lifetime, would be viewed in many different ways as Lower Canadian society evolved. In the mid 19th century he was perceived as an experienced, courageous, intrepid soldier who enjoyed the confidence of his men. At the turn of the century English-speaking historians put greater emphasis on the roles played by Macdonell or Wattenwyl, but French-speaking ones defended Salaberry, stressing his valour and intrepidity and pointing out that he had had to make do with limited means furnished by pusillanimous superiors. In the early 1950s Salaberry was looked upon as the French Canadian who had given an outstanding demonstration of the courage of the race. In the decade that followed, the portrait of the hero was effaced by the image of a body of national militia including both English- and French-speaking men who side by side defended Canada. Finally, more recently Salaberry’s victory has been attributed to a fruitful collaboration by various elements against a common enemy.
Michelle Guitard
AAQ, 210 A, VIII. ANQ-M, CN1-16, 21 mars 1814; CN1-43, 16 mai, 6, 30 juill., 7, 23 sept. 1814; 4 oct., 9 nov., 24 déc. 1816; 10 janv. 1817; 29 juin 1818; 1er, 5 févr., 30 avril, 5 juill. 1819; 23 mai, 4, 18 juill., 4 oct. 1820; 23, 26 janv. 1822; CN1-123, 14 sept. 1816; 29 juill. 1817; 27 janv. 1818; 30 oct. 1820; 29 juin, 21 juill., 6 août 1821; 28 mars 1822; 26 mars, 3 juill. 1823; 2 févr. 1825; CN1-194, 13 mai 1812, 25 janv. 1814. ANQ-Q, CE1-5, 19 nov. 1778; CN1-212, 28 avril 1816; E21/12; P-289; P-417. ASQ, mss, 74. National Arch. (Washington), RG 94. PAC, MG 24, B2; B16; G5; G8; G9; G45; L5; RG 1, E2, 3; L3L; RG 4, A2; B21; RG 8, I (C ser.); RG 9, I; II, A4; A5. W. F. Coffin, 1812, the war and its moral; a Canadian chronicle (Montreal, 1864). William James, A full and correct account of the military occurrences of the late war between Great Britain and the UnitedStates of America . . . (2v., London, 1818). L. C., House of Assembly, Journals, 1819, app.O; Legislative Council, Journals, 1814, 1818, 1819; Statutes, 1793–1814. The life of F.M., H.R.H. Edward, Duke of Kent,illustrated by his correspondence with the De Salaberry family, never before published, extending from 1791 to 1814, ed. W. J. Anderson (Ottawa and Toronto, 1870). Official letters of the military and naval officers ofthe United States, during the war with Great Britain in the years 1812, 13, 14, & 15 . . . , comp. John Brannan (Washington, 1823). [James Reynolds], Journal of an American prisoner at Fort Malden and Quebec in theWar of 1812, ed. G. M. Fairchild (Quebec, 1909). Select British docs. of War of 1812 (Wood). Montreal Gazette, 9 Nov. 1813. Quebec Mercury, 1805–14. F.-M. Bibaud, Le Panthéon canadien (A. et V. Bibaud; 1891). L.-O. David, Biographies et portraits (Montréal, 1876), 59. Montreal almanack, 1829. H. J. Morgan, Sketches of celebrated Canadians. Quebec almanac, 1811–14.
Gilbert Auchinleck, A history of the war between Great Britain and the United States of America, during the years 1812, 1813, and 1814 (Toronto, 1855). F. F. Beirne, The War of 1812 (Hamden, Conn., 1965). H. L. Coles, The War of 1812 (Chicago, 1965). L.-O. David, Le héros de Châteauguay (C. M. de Salaberry) (Montréal, 1883). The defended border: Upper Canada and the War of 1812 . . . , ed. Morris Zaslow and W. B. Turner (Toronto, 1964). Lucien Gagné, Salaberry, 1778–1829 (thèse de phd, univ. de Montréal, 1948). George Gale, Historic tales of old Quebec (Quebec, 1923). Mollie Gillen, The prince and his lady: the lovestory of the Duke of Kent and Madame de St Laurent (London, 1970; repr. Halifax, 1985). G. R. Gleig, A sketch of the military history of Great Britain (London, 1845). Michelle Guitard, Histoire sociale des miliciens dela bataille de la Châteauguay (Ottawa, 1983). J. T. Headley, The second war with England (New York, 1853). Hitsman, Incredible War of 1812. Reginald Horsman, The causes of the War of 1812 (New York, 1972); TheWar of 1812 (London, 1969). J. R. Jacobs, Tarnished warrior, Major-General James Wilkinson (New York, 1938). W. D. Lighthall, An account of the battle of Chateauguay . . . (Montreal, 1889). R. B. McAfee, History ofthe late war in the western country . . . (Lexington, Ky., 1816). A. T. Mahan, Sea power in its relations to the War of 1812 (2v., London, 1905). J. K. Mahon, The War of 1812 (Gainesville, Fla., 1972). Theodore Roosevelt, The naval war of 1812, or the history of the United States Navy during the last war with Great Britain, to which is appended an account of the battle of New Orleans (New York and London, 1882). Robert Rumilly, Papineau et son temps (2v., Montréal, 1977). Robert Sellar, The U.S. campaign of 1813 to capture Montreal; Crysler, the decisive battle of the War of 1812 (Huntingdon, Que., 1913). G. A. Steppler, “A duty troublesome beyond measure: logistical considerations in the Canadian War of 1812” (ma thesis, McGill Univ., Montreal, 1974). Benjamin Sulte, La bataille de Châteauguay (Québec, 1899). Wallot, Un Québec quibougeait. J. R. Western, The English militia in the eighteenth century; the history of a political issue, 1660–1802 (London and Toronto, 1965). Samuel White, (Baltimore, Md., 1830). W. C. H. Wood, The war with the United States; a chronicle of 1812 (Toronto, 1915). C.-M. Boissonnault, “Le Québec et la guerre de 1812,” Rev. de l’univ. Laval (Québec), 5 (1950–51): 611–25. W. H. Goodman, “The origins of the War of 1812: a survey of changing interpretations,” Mississippi Valley Hist. Rev. ([Cedar Rapids, Iowa]), 28 (1941–42): 171–86. Eric Jarvis, “Military land granting in Upper Canada following the War of 1812,” OH, 67 (1975): 121–34. R. J. Koke, “The Britons who fought on the Canadian frontier; uniforms of the War of 1812,” N.Y. Hist. Soc., Quarterly (New York), 45 (1961): 141–94. G. F. G. Stanley, “The Indians in the War of 1812,” CHR, 31 (1950): 145–65.