Talk:Battle of Plattsburgh

References needed

First let me say that this is a superb article. But it is seriously marred by the fact that it lists no references. And some statements need inline citations (For example, the quotes from Roosevelt and Churchill both need a citation.) I know there was a great book all about the battle that came out a few years ago (entitled something like "The Last Invasion"... but I may be remembering wrong)... I will look into that and add it if I can track it down. I hope others will do the same. Blueboar 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is still an issue, I've given a number of Bibliograhic and external links that could be used to beef up the text and the references. Best to you, BlueBoar. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

Dispute

It seems clear enough to me that the British were defeated on the lake, but withdrew on land. There were two separate battles, one of which was a decisive victory for the US, and the other of which was handed to them without significant engagement. This is a review of The Final Invasion: Plattsburgh, the War of 1812’s Most Decisive Battle by David G. Fitz-Enz in Parameters (journal), a publication of the U.S. Army War College:

Prevost was a cautious commander, used to being on the defensive, whose instructions warned against “being cut off by too extended a line of advance,” as had occurred at Saratoga. Looking ahead to winter, feeling that a ground attack would be fruitless without the naval transport to sustain a further advance, and assuming that he could build another flotilla to resume the offensive in 1815, Prevost ordered his army to withdraw, despite a superiority of at least three to one, odds that would nearly guarantee an attacker’s victory in 1814. There was therefore no true land battle at Plattsburgh, though Fitz-Enz fully describes land operations and the skirmishing that did occur. Prevost was much criticized for his withdrawal, although Fitz-Enz quotes the Duke of Wellington’s praise for Prevost’s humanitarianism and understanding of logistical constraints. Indeed, the many scholars who criticize the American effort in this war would do well to pay more attention to problems of supply, for tactical capability was rarely wanting by 1814. Yet Fitz-Enz does not really address whether the powerful British army might have affected the equation by driving the Americans from Plattsburgh and trapping Macdonough between ship and shore batteries, thus forcing him onto the open lake, where the British could fire from stand-off positions. Pressing his naval commander to attack prematurely, Prevost hazarded the resource he felt most essential to his enterprise, and the one least prepared for combat.

The battle of Plattsburgh coincided with the attack on Fort McHenry and the siege of Fort Erie on the Niagara frontier. Outnumbered and outgunned, determined American forces prevailed every time. Wellington told his superiors that he could do little to remedy the situation, that “the war was practically ended by Prevost’s retreat. What remained was purely episodical in character.” This may be an exaggerated conclusion, for the British did try again at New Orleans, but the result was the same, again due in large part to the small Regular Army force that formed the core of American defenses in all these campaigns.

Thus, that Prevost withdrew is the unremarkable way that a professor at the US military's own war college describes the situation. We could reword as "American victory (marine), British withdrawal (ground)" or similar, to distinguish the dependency of the latter on the former. --Dhartung | Talk 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion makes sense in light of two separate battles. Perhaps a modification of the info box thus:-

|Result1= Land Battle - British Withdrawal

|Result2= Naval Battle - American Victory

This modification could easily be extended to other info boxes for similar conflicts to prevent edit disputes. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It might prevent editorial disputes; but since the entire British campaign was a complete failure as a consequence of the naval defeat, "American Victory" is, to my mind, the only truthful verdict. Attempts to disguise this by focussing on irrelevant actions are only relentless pro-British POV-pushing which (as British myself) I find embarassing. It is the case that one or two edits in the past have gone a bit too far in describing the British decision to throw up the whole campaign and march back to Canada as some sort of decisive American land victory also, but a decently-written overview should put the land fighting in its proper context. HLGallon (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm American, not British, and my point of view is that we won the war, so why not be honest that in this one little battle which we barely fought we didn't actually pull out a "win"? In wargaming there are gradations of victory conditions beyond binary one-side-won and one-side-lost interpretations. Why can't our infobox do the same? --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dhartung. Articles are about individual battles and the infobox should report the result of each battle. Note: not only am I British, I'm an archivist for the Duke of Wellington's Regiment of which one of the antecedent regiments, the 76th Regiment of Foot, took part in the land battle, whilst the other, the 33rd Regiment of Foot, was involved in many others. Some we won others we lost. The Battle of Guilford Court House is classed as a 'Pyrrhic' victory for the British, but to be honest if the 1,046 'missing' American Militia men had regrouped and returned,instead of going home, they would probably have won the day as the 33rd was just about decimated and out of ammunition. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say this should be left simply as "American Victory". Winston Churchill called it a decisive American victory, but lets save that for another day. (Red4tribe (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

This one needs to be left as an American Victory, God knows there were enough American outright defeats to go around in this war without trying to make an extra one out of this. This battle did effect the outcome of the Ghent treaty and in the light was one of the more important battles along with the repulse at Baltimore pretty much ended the war with current Prime Minister ordering Brit negoiators to accept status quo anti-bellum. There is little or no grounds for changing the battle and never was. Provost left his sick and wounded to the American's which speaks for the haste of the withdraw. I've got sourcing on this so I will bail in here.

On another note one of our editors got himself blocked over edit warring. I'll ask everyone to remember the 3RR rule and WP:CIV. I don't love any article enough to enjoy seeing a young editor getting himself in trouble. So everyone knows where I stand on this, I am an American and I think America lost this war, however being the contentious and ever shifting war that it was and being as unable as anyone else to prove otherwise... I'm sticking to status quo anti-bellum. Tirronan (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me as if this article is somewhat biased in its summary, since the statement that the Battle of Plattsburgh resulted in the repulse of British invasions implies that hostilities in the War of 1812 were initiated by the British.

In fact, the U.S. declared war first on the British on June 18, 1812, with expressed intentions of attacking and occupying parts of Upper and Lower Canada. The operations on Lake Champlain and near Plattsburgh were part of the War of 1812, as Plattsburgh had been used as a starting point for U.S. troops unsuccessful attack on Montreal earlier.

To me the article comes across as having a bias for the U.S. POV Verum non in verbis (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC) James

There were invasions of territories by both sides. The earlier defeats of US invasions of British colonial territory is listed as such under those articles. I know that the article The War of 1812 states that the United States declared war. The British won the war at sea, they lost here pretty flatly. It and the repulse at Baltimore followed by the disaster at New Orleans, showed that mo matter what, invading US territory wasn't going to work. We have an obligation to the public to present these articles as close to the truth as we can. The British were attempting to invade and had to retreat fast. There isn't any way to dress that pig up and call it a horse.Tirronan (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Going back a little further, the British were having problems (which they always had but worse) staffing ships to fight Napoleon. They had decided that anyone speaking with a British accent found aboard American ships, were "impressed" into being British sailors. This was heavy-handed treatment which they could get away with, since there was a huge disparity in fighting capability. Americans won the Revolutionary War, thanks only to the French Navy, which was no longer available! This "Impressing" had been going on since the early 1800s. Granted, the Americans waited until the British were distracted before going to war! And what are "goals" in a war? The US was not about to pursue naval/marine goals. Jamaica was out of the question! So it had to be goals involving contiguous territory with the US which would involve army and small ships.

BTW, not a popular war in the US. Student7 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well what you see here and every article concerning this war is the popular myth vs. the reality of the war. In Canada and much of the commonwealth There is the myth #1: America fought the war to annex Canada. I've even heard it from supposed historians. One website referring to America and its filthy land grabbing greed. It seems to be fed in large part by Anti-Americanism. It has tightened my jaw on a few occasions but there it is. Myth #2 Is the stab in the back story. In this story the Filthy Land Grabbing American's traitorously waited until Britain was fully engaged before attacking Canada. Both myths seem to over look 19 years of rising maritime tensions. America sent committees and delegations trying to sort things out. There had been two fights between the countries warships before war was declared. The tensions between the two nations was so high that when a British frigate caught sight of an American squadron at sea, the British captain rightfully concluded that war had been declared and he just hadn't been informed. The Captain turned about and fled thereby saving his ship. There was no mystery as to why war had been declared. None of this fits the founding myth. In point of fact America had doubled in size at the time of the war and hadn't really begun settling the regions it had acquired. The other facts are that the US really didn't have a standing army or much of a navy. Again this flies in the face of the founding myth. Finally we come to the war that no one wanted and no one really tried to win. The British couldn't invade the US successfully to end the war. The US couldn't win the war at sea. Brutal truth is that when the facts were weighed there was no end in sight and very little reason to wage it. The only reason it ever started was the Napoleonic war, the screaming manpower shortage in the RN, and a big brother/little brother relationship that had developed between the Nations instead of a proper Nation to Nation perspective. Some of this the US brought upon itself by not having a larger and active navy and standing army.Tirronan (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Vermont's attitude / contributions

The lines, "Captain Daniel Pring, the commander of the gunboats, set up a battery on Isle La Motte, Vermont. This was the first time a British force had stepped foot onto Vermont soil, and the Vermonters swarmed across the lake to Plattsburgh's defenses." seem a little simplistic, and need to be clarified and expanded.

In the first place, I'm sure that British ships and marines raided several settlements on the Vermont shores of Lake Champlain during the summer of 1813. In the second, the paragraph reads as if, having spent the previous years selling cattle, flour, salt and naval stores to the British, the Vermonters declared some sort of Holy War to expel the British from the sacred soil of one small island.

This part of the article ought to be expanded and clarified by someone better informed on the history of Vermont than I am. HLGallon (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

HLGallon is correct in his surmissal about raids. Derby, Vermont got hit December 27, 1813 by militia, neighbors from next-door Stanstead, Quebec, to whom the locals had been formerly smuggling goods! The locals were not amused after this incident and presumably stopped or at least slowed down their smuggling! Student7 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement "This was the first time a British force had stepped foot onto Vermont soil" is definately incorrect. As HLGallon stated, the British conducted an operation known as "Murray's Raid" which lasted from July 29th - August 3rd of 1813. Col. John Murray, commander of the British garrison at St. John's, Quebec, led a force comprised of 2 sloops, three galleys, and some 47 bateaux laden with 900 soldiers, sailors, and Marines into Lake Champlain with orders to destroy all military storehouses, barracks, etc. and capture or destroy any stores or boats that could be used by the enemy. The raiders burned a blockhouse and armory in Plattsburgh, and captured several merchant ships and their cargo near Burlington, Vermont. On their return trip up the lake, troops were landed in Vermont on August 2nd at Maquam Bay where they marched to Swanton, Vermont. There they destroyed a barracks, a hospital, and several other government buildings before marching back to their boats. It was at Swanton that depositions were taken following the raid accusing the British of rape and attempted rape of local women. After more destruction of a blockhouse and barracks the following day in Champlain, New York, the raiders finally returned to Canada.--SmedleyButler (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

An editor has been inserting presumed relatives into battle articles. We now have:

"led by Captain Mcglassin and 50 Americans". Why is Captain Mcglassin's contribution so notable that his name is there? He has no article. The contribution to the battle was slight. The officer who sent this detachment was more notable IMO. The "leading" part was a bit incidental IMO.

Isn't there a Wikipolicy about sticking random names in articles? Student7 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I inserted the segment about Captain George Mcglassin. It is not a "random name." This incident was a significant action of the land portion of the Battle, not "slight" and has nothing to do with any rediculous assumptions about my or anyone else's relatives. Your insinuations are very unprofessional. Anyway, Captain Mcglassin led roughly 50 Americans from Fort Brown in a daring night attack across the Saranac River. There they surprised and put to flight a much larger force of around 150 British troops who were constructing a Congreve rocket battery on a hill several hundred yards beyond the river from the American fort. The raiders were then able to quickly wreck the batteries and spike the rockets, returning across the Saranac without the loss of a single casualty. Had this attack not taken place, the British forces there could theoretically have bombarded Fort Brown with rockets from that position the following day and perhaps gained enough of a foothold to successfully cross the River in Plattsburgh proper, something they were unable to do throughout the entire course of the seige. Captain Mcglassin was personally cited for his conduct in letters by General Macomb, the Commanding Officer of the American forces, and his contribution irrefutably warrants his name in the article.--SmedleyButler (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the sources I recently inserted, including (among others) the external link to the transcript of reports filed by Alexander Macomb (American general), who led the American land forces, this would shed some light on the question.

• Transcript of Alexander Macomb letter on defense of Fort Moreau.
• Transcript of Alexander Macomb letter on British retreat from Plattsburg.

Best to you all 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

Images needed

The image from the infobox has been dropped. It might also be good to insert the Reverse of the Congressional Gold Medal given to Alexander Macomb (American general), if somebody knows how to do that and where to find it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

How about a map of the overall area, and one specifically of the forces and battles? This seems like a glaring and obvious omission for military battles articles in which area geography is so important to following along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.127.98 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of article

Not sure why article is named "Battle of Plattsburgh" except as a chamber of commerce thing or to pov overemphasize the army's contribution. When the naval battle was concluded, prior to the opening of army hostilities, that was the end. There was, essentially, no land battle to speak of. This is why there were three ships named "Lake Champlain" and none named "Plattsburgh." I would like to see the article name changed to the more common one. Student7 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That what Congress called it, and to be sure it may have overemphasized the contribution of the army. But historically, that is where it was fought (and on Lake Champlain); and we have a redirect for Battle of Lake Champlain which is noted in the article's lead. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Stan

Result

The Americans won the battle, no question. But "decisive" needs a citation, as does the claim of the effects on the negotiaions. Wikipedia has too few articles that quote a result, and its usually left to joe public to decide what type of victory it is. This is not good. Find a citation for "decisive". Dapi89 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Roosevelt: "The effects of the victory were immediate and of the highest importance. Sir George Prevost and his army at once fled in great haste and confusion back to Canada, leaving our northern frontier clear for the remainder of the war; while the victory had a very great effect on the negotiations for peace." OK, possibly a biased source, but Hitsman: "Should the offensive launched from Canada also prove succesful, [the American commissioners at Ghent] would have no counter to the British claim of uti possidetis. Fortunately for them , the next news from North America was that of the American naval victory on Lake Champlain." These two references ought to be sufficient for the decisiveness of the battle and its effect on peace talks. HLGallon (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I would raher it be called; Victory with decisive political results. As militarily it was less decisive in determining the outcome of the 'shooting' conflict. Dapi89 (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What is done in other articles on battles? A lot of victories are Pyrrhic (guerrilla victories, usually, for example). This was a clear victory. There was no question as to who won. There were encounters in which both sides suffered similar losses and both sides withdrew. I guess those would have to be "qualified" - one side may have won a "tactical" victory, the other a "political" one. What is not clear about this? Why is there a question?

Having said that, maybe "decisive" is pov? Does it need an adjective? Why can't the fact of victory stand alone? I seems to me that it should be qualified when either dubious (Monmouth) or overwhelming. Like Waterloo. But this should be argued out at a higher level IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Mr. Gallon on this one, it was a decisive battle in that it completely wrapped up military operations on that area and led both sides to agree that no successful outcome to the war was likely.Tirronan (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Plattsburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523115325/http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/people/brisbane.html to http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/people/brisbane.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308233215/http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/events/platts.html to http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/events/platts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)