Talk:Battle of the Thames
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Moraviantown - War crime
Would the burning of Moraviantown count as a war crime? Krupo 04:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, a war crime necessitates a set of laws and enforcement, which didn't really exist before the era of the Geneva Conferences. After the incredible atrocities of the Thirty Years War a lawyer named Grotius set down the generally-accepted guidelines that most so-called civilized military leaders would follow, but whether a leader followed those precepts or not was a matter of personal choice. Was the burning heinous or unethical? That's another question. LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I believe that it would
Yet in those times, it was common to 'sack' or burn the fort you were attacking. In this instance there was no such front. It seems the Americans still wanted to burn something, not surprising but in my mind still a crime. Greenknight (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No It Was Not
The concept of "War Crimes" is really a 20th century invention. Besides by Wiki's definition, war crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war" which by the previous commentator's own description this was not as it was "common to 'sack' or burn the fort you were attacking." It is also humorous that you don't see anyone rushing to claim that the burning of Washington was a "war crime." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Canada Project Ratings
I have assigned initial ratings of class: Start (because the article is more than a stub, although it needs more material before it's a "B") and importance: Mid. Other editors may disagree with the "Mid" rating and are free to adjust accordingly, but from my vague recollections of the War of 1812 the Battle of Moraviantown was an important one, mostly due to the loss of Tecumseh and the loss of property. PKT (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Killing of Tecumseh
Per “Notes on Kentucky Veterans of the War of 1812”, it was said of Jacob Harrod Holeman (1793-1857) that “he was at the Battle of Tippecanoe and always claimed to have killed Tecumseh [cited by Kentucky Yeoman, 9 Nov 1880].
This claim is also made by Kentucky politician Richard Mentor Johnson (b: 17 Oct 1780, d: 19 Nov 1850) of Frankfort, the ninth Vice President of the US serving under President Martin Van Buren, as well as William Whitley, a Revolutionary War veteran and volunteer of the raid and George Cardwell ( see "History of Franklin County, Kentucky" 1912 by LF Johnson, p. 58).