Journal of the War of 1812
An International Journal Dedicated to the last Anglo-American War, 1812-1815
Highlights of the Renewal Issue:
The Patriot War:
The Origins of Uncle Sam
Was it really a “Florida Fiasco”?
Visit 1812: Historic Fort Norfolk
The Main Gate at Fort Norfolk, Virginia
Before the Battle of Horseshoe Bend:
A New Look at the Creek War
New Features: Role of the States; Publisher's Profile; Chronology;
News You Use; and More...
Spring 2008
Vol. 11, No. 1
Single Issue: $4.00 US
Subscription: $12.50 US Annual
The Journal of the War of 1812
Volume XI, No. 1, Spring 2008
An International Journal Dedicated
to the Last Anglo-American War,
1812-1815
GOVERNANCE
Editor – Harold W. Youmans
Co-Editor – Christopher T. George
Editorial Advisors:
John R. Grodzinski; Eric E. Johnson; and Mary
Jo Cunningham, Editor Emeritus
Board of Scholastic Advisors:
Rene Chartrand, Hull, Quebec; Donald E.
Graves, Almonte, Ontario; Martin K. Gordon,
John Hopkins University School of Continuing
Studies; Donald R. Hickey, Wayne State
College; Michael D. Harris, Newberg, MO; Kathy
Lee Erlandson Liston, Brookneal, VA; Robert
Malcomson, St. Catherines, Ontario; Gene A.
Smith, Texas Christian University; Joseph A.
Whitehorne, Middletown, VA.
ADVERTISING
Contact the Editor at 13194 US Highway 301
South, #360, Riverview, Florida 33578-7410;
Tel: 813.671.8852; Fax: 813-671-8853.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Single issue costs $4.00 US or four issues for
$12.50 US, $15.00 other countries. All checks
must be in US dollars drawn on a US bank and
sent to: Journal of the War of 1812, 844 E. Pratt
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA.
Subscription questions Call (813) 671-8852
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Authors are encouraged to request and/or
consult the War of 1812 Consortium's Ten-Year
Publication Plan for the Journal's current and
upcoming needs and the Submission Guidelines.
Both are available on request. Contact: the
Editor at email: [email protected].
Authors should note that the time from receipt of
the submission to its' publication may be up to
six months in this quarterly magazine. Authors
will be notified should the estimated publication
date exceed six months.
All submission should be sent as simple Word
documents without any codes embedded for
headings or other formatting. Font should be
Times New Roman, font size 12, left justified.
Endnotes must be numbered using Arabic and
not Roman numerals.
Important: Images must not be embedded in the
text of a document and must be submitted
separately, either in electronic format or clean
hard copy. Electronic copies should be JPEG
files, 300 dpi.
Authors are responsible for securing permission
to publish copyrighted material.
The Editor reserves the right to make minor
spelling, grammatical or syntax changes to any
submission. Authors will be contacted should
their work require any substantive changes or if
their submission is unsuitable for publication.
At present the Consortium does not pay for
submissions. Authors affiliated with bona fide
historical organizations or societies may receive
free notices of their organization's War of 1812
related activities in the Journal and these
organizations or societies may be otherwise
further profiled in the Journal.
The Journal of the War of 1812 (ISSN
1524-1459) is published quarterly by The War of
1812 Consortium, Inc., 844 E. Pratt Street,
Baltimore, Maryland 21201. Periodical postage
paid at Baltimore, Maryland, and at additional
mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address
changes to The War of 1812 Consortium, Inc.,
844 E. Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201,
USA.
Copyright © 2008 by The War of 1812
Consortium, Inc.
All rights reserved.
PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.
Journal of the War of 1812
An International Journal Dedicated to the last Anglo-American War, 1812-1815
Volume XI, No. 1, Spring 2008
DEPARTMENTS
3 | Editor's Quoin:
The New Editor says “All Readers have
Space in the Quoin.”
15 | Visit 1812
Fort Norfolk, Virginia: A State Historic
Landmark
16 | War Leader Profile
US Navy Officer John Templer Shubrick
(1788-1815)
17 | Publisher's Profile
The Nautical & Aviation Publishing Company
18 | The Role of the States
South Dakota and the War of 1812: A
Bibliographic Essay
20 | Book Review
Union 1812: The Americans who Fought the
Second War of Independence, by A.J.
Langguth
21 | The Documents
William Cobbett's “Tall Men Make Good
Soldiers”
22 | War of 1812 Chronology
War of 1812 anniversaries from May through
July
28 | War of 1812 Calendar of Events
Multi-national up-coming events, festivals
and commemmorances
FEATURES
6 | THE ORIGINS OF UNCLE SAM
by Donald R. Hickey
Seasoned Historian reflects on the myth and
facts behind the “Uncle Sam” stories
8 | THE PATRIOT WAR
by Colin Murphy
A new look at the events surrounding the
events in the Floridas before and during the
War
23 | BEFORE HORSEHOE BEND
by Charles R. Burns
Part One of a Series placing the Creek War in
a new perspective
ALSO NEWS YOU WANT TO USE:
4 | History has not Died at Delphos; General
Alexander Macomb in Montana? “History is
Where You Find It”; “Historic Landmark” Status for
River Raisin Battlefield
5 | New Model of HMS St. Lawrence; “Culture
Wars” and the War of 1812 Dissent; Canadian
War of 1812 Bicentennial Planning
7 | The First Jewish Diplomat; British Wartime
Incursions in Virginia; Camp Liberty, New Jersey
17 | War of 1812 Puzzler: Who was Nicholas
Long? This Time with the Answer!
COVER PHOTO: Fort Norfolk is located within the compound managed by the District
Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk Virginia
NEW MODEL OF THE 110-GUN HMS ST. LAWRENCE
MAY SOON BE AT A CANADIAN MUSEUM
Editor: We haven't seen it yet, but at $63,000 it may be worth a trip to Kingston. See page 5.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 2
to keep track of.
EDITOR'S QUOIN
“All Readers have Space in the Quoin”
Regular readers of this Journal, hopefully, will herald
the resumption of publication as a good sign and new
readers and old can look forward to a rush of rhetoric
as both new ideas and old traditions blend.
The original goals of the Journal remain unchanged:
to provide quality scholarship relating to the national
experience during the War of 1812, to provide a
platform for aggressive, yet respectful, dialog on the
War, and to provide useful information sources for
historians, enthusiasts, and others seeking to enhance
their knowledge of the War of 1812.
As your new editor takes the helm, guided by the
wisdom of my Co-Editor, Christopher George,
readers will see a slight change in formats and style, a
slightly larger change in breadth and depth of
historical scholarship and a tremendous change in
motion as the nation approaches the Bicentennial of
the War. It is my hope you and all new subscribers
take that Bicentennial voyage with us.
The first change you will see is a series of new
features to broaden your reading and curiosity about
the War. Regular features such as a focus on a war
leader and on the role of the States appear in this
issue. The War of 1812 in South Dakota? Who
would have thought? And John Templer Shubrick?
Your editor would argue that he was perhaps the most
experienced tactical naval officer in the service at the
time of his death.
Each issue will have a new and sometimes off-thebeaten-path War of 1812 historical site profiled. Your
new editor has had an opportunity to travel these
United States extensively over the past 40 years and
can safely say he has visited more than 95% of all of
the existing War of 1812 sites in this country and
Canada. We begin that series with a profile on that
architectural gem: Fort Norfolk, Virginia. Materials
provided in this issue were graciously provided by the
Norfolk Historical Society.
We will also provide an historical chronology for the
upcoming quarter year in each issue. Don't think you
will have it all, however, after four issues. The series
will be responsive to your needs and interactive. The
editor has a multi-volume chronology from which to
draw. Let us know what aspect of the War you want
“Looking Forward” is also a new feature. Each
quarter, upcoming events sponsored by the National
Park Service and Parks Canada, by the states,
provinces and towns, as well as public and private
historical societies and organizations will be profiled.
Again the editor encourages each of our readers to
bring events into focus for the enjoyment of all. Fort
Meigs, Ohio, gets the lion's share of this quarter's
wordage.
As many times as we can there will be a fresh review
of new War-related publications. Some will be
original and some will be reprinted with permission
of other journals and publications. Also of note will
be the occasional profile of a current publishing
house which provides War of 1812 themed books.
This quarter it is The Nautical and Aviation
Publishing Company of America, Inc. As you will
see they have three War of 1812 titles in print.
Of course, a Journal is not a journal worthy of note
without the contributions of distinguished scholars on
critical issues within the field. This first Journal after
our hiatus is no exception. Donald R. Hickey, Charles
R. Burns, and Colin Murphy provide thoughtprovoking articles to maintain the standards of the
Journal.
No new editor should take the helm without a well
deserved nod of thanks and appreciation to those who
came before. Wherever these new initiatives take the
Journal, no voyage would have been possible without
the hard work and dedication provided by former
editors and the production team. During the short
time since your Editor has been, with both gratitude
and apprehension, appointed, the full scope of the
duties have been laid bare. Let me do as well, and
success with follow.
On request the Editor can provide a copy of the
Business Plan for the Journal, a revised 10-year
Publication Plan, and the Submission Guidelines.
The new email account for the Journal is
[email protected] Letters to the Editor,
articles for publication, and all manner of proper
suggestions, criticism and, of course, praise, are
welcome.
Each of you have space in the Editor's Quoin. Come
share it.
Harold W. Youmans
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 3
NEWS YOU WANT TO USE
HISTORY HAS NOT DIED AT
DELPHOS
A successful search for Delphos, Ohio, would bring
you to Putnam County, about 140 miles north of
Cincinnati. It's a three hour trip today, but a grueling
11-day journey in 1812. The War of 1812 enthusiasts
would remember on the road to Detroit in that year
the Army established Fort Jennings as a supply point
on the west bank of the Auglaize River.
The Delphos Herald (Telling the Tri-County's Stories
Since 1869) recently reported on the St. John's
Elementary School's “History Fair.” “A huge success”
the paper reported, which included topics selected
around a theme: “Conflict, Compromise and
Historical Events.” One enterprising eight-grader
produced: “Fort Jennings and the War of 1812.”
While the budding War of 1812 scholar was not
identified and may not have won at the Fair, one may
contact Ms Helen Kaverman, a Grandmother, Judge
and Reporter for The Delphos Herald or Mr. Andy
Miller, the teacher of REALLY GOOD HISTORY,
which, fortunately is not dead in Delphos. Good luck
to each of the contestants. Source: The Delphos
Herald, Monday, February 11, 2008.
GENERAL ALEXANDER MACOMB,
MONTANA, AND THE “HISTORY IS
WHERE YOU FIND IT” SYNDROME
Editor: The following Internet blog entry is too good
to attempt any rewrite. Enjoy!
The Wild Hare, March 7, 2008. “This afternoon the
Imps and I decided to visit a local museum, having
spent the bulk of Spring Break reading, crafting, and
relaxing. We wandered through many fascinating
displays and pieces of history. But, what amazed me
was an item tucked in the corner of the basement of
the building, a lone piece of furniture ... it is the desk
of Gen. Alexander Macomb and he used it while
stationed in New York during the War of 1812! Who
would imagine that in a very small, locally run and
operated museum in Billings, Montana there would
be a desk from the War of 1812. It was amazing and
being the rule breakers we are, the Imps and I all
touched it reverently and even peeked inside.”
Post-script: The Billings, Montana, museum is the
Peter Yegen, Jr., Yellowstone County Museum
(Museum Link: www.pyjrycm.org). Two unsigned
comments on the blog discussed whether the General
had migrated West. He didn't. General Macomb died
in office at Washington, DC, June 1841, while
serving as Commanding General of the US Army.
SOCIETY SEEKS “HISTORIC
LANDMARK” STATUS FOR RIVER
RAISIN BATTLEFIELD
The Monroe County (Michigan) Historical Society
has hired an experienced archaeologist to prepare and
submit the required study which may lead to the
designation of the River Raisin Battlefield as a
National Historic Landmark. According to a feature
in the Toledo Blade dated February 15, 2008, Mr.
William Braunlich, president of the society,
announced that Professor G. Michael Pratt,
Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio, has joined in the
effort to convince the US Secretary of the Interior.
It was a bloody January, 1813, when along the banks
of the River Raisin only 20 of 934 American soldiers
escaped death or capture at the hands of the British
and her Indian allies. Massacre! “Remember the
River Raisin” was to be the rallying cry from
Wisconsin to New Orleans, wherever Kentucky
troops were engaged for the remainder of the war.
It is indeed a long and winding path to the
designation as an Historic Landmark, but the Society
appears to have the support of US Representative
John Dingell (Dem., Dearborn) and others.
Additionally, there is a ongoing National Park
Service study that Professor Pratt seeks to
complement and accelerate.
Two figures will give the reader perspective.
Although there are over 76,000 properties on the
National Register of Historic Places, there are only
2,500 on the list of National Historic Landmarks.
Source: Contact Blade Staff Writer Mark Reiter at:
[email protected].
Editor: Good luck to the Society and Professor Pratt.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 4
NEW MODEL OF HMS ST.
LAWRENCE READY FOR DISPLAY
Nanaimo, British Columbia, March 3, 2008. A new
scale model of the Royal Navy's HMS St. Lawrence, a
112-gun ship-of-the-line completed in 1814, will
soon be on display at the Royal Military College in
Kingston, Ontario.
Mr. Louis Roosen, formerly a merchant seaman and
now a ship modeler from western Canada, spent
4,000 hours building the model using wood harvested
from a backyard cherry tree, old photographs, and
notes from historians around the world.
The model has been appraised at $63,000, but Mr.
Rosen intends to donate the ship if it can be carted to
Kingston without damage. Commercial carriers
expect the insurance premium on the cross-country
trip to be as high as $5,000. According to the
Nanaimo Daily News, the Roosen family may take
the ship east themselves. Look for the ship at the
College later this year.
© The Daily News (Nanaimo) 2008. Source: Martha
Tropea, at [email protected].
NEW BOOK LINKS TODAY'S
“CULTURE WARS” TO WAR OF
1812 DISSENT
In a new book, Forrest Church, Minister of Public
Theology at Manhattan's All Souls Unitarian Church,
discusses the sometimes bitter debate of the role of
religion in the public square.
He argues that the Founding Fathers and especially
the first five Presidents were not “particularly
devout,” but when church leaders “attached their star
to a political wagon, that star is pulled out of the
heavens and dragged through the amoral
compromises of politics.”
To reinforce this view he noted that when the New
England religious establishment tied itself to the
Federalist Party during the War of 1812, it shared the
public branding of the Party as “traitorous” and
suffered the same public loss of support as the Party.
Churches who kept their distance from the politicians
thrived.
Church's book is: So Help Me God: The Founding
Fathers and The First Great Battle Over Church and
State (Harcourt, c. 2007). These comments are from
the Santa Barbara (California) Independent on
February 5, 2008. The Journal would welcome a
Book Review from its readers.
CANADIAN WAR OF 1812
BICENTENNIAL PLANNING IN THE
NEWS!
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, February 4, 2008. Canada needs to change perceptions about the War of
1812 and to give itself a reason to celebrate. So, a
recent opinion article posted at www.therecord.com/
believes its very appropriate that the City of Toronto
would approve spending $25,000 to begin planning
the bicentennial observances. Canadians of all stripes
rose to defend British North America and deserve to
remember and celebrate.
Sault Ste.-Marie, Ontario, Canada, March 3, 2008. “A regional committee, involving representation from
the Sault, Algoma District, and Northern Michigan,
has been brainstorming for nearly a year on how to
commemorate the border war between Britain and the
United States and the following 200 years of
friendship and peace.” The complete article is posted
at www.saultstar.com.
Ontario Province, Canada, March 14, 2008. According to the Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin,
Ontario Province has received seed money to begin
organizing the Bicentennial. Canadian Ministry of
Tourism officials are looking for legacy and
education programs that are as historically-correct as
possible. See www.theenterprisebulletin.com.
And Remember... Ontario's Minister of Tourism
issued a News Release related to the War of 1812
Bicentennial Provincial Symposium in Toronto in
February. The stakes: “Tourism contributes over
$20 billion (yes, that's with a “B”) annually to
Ontario's economy and accounts for more than
300,000 direct and indirect jobs. Ontario's cultural
tourism generates more than $4.6 billion annually
across the province and is the tourist industry's fastest
growing segment.”
Source: www.newswire.ca/en/releases.
Editor's Note: Succinctly put. Now, who is lighting or
carrying our candle?
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 5
THE ORIGINS OF UNCLE SAM
by
Donald R. Hickey
Conventional wisdom holds that Uncle Sam
originated in Troy, New York, during the War of
1812. Troy, located on the east bank of the Hudson
River seven miles north of Albany, was an important
market town. During the War of 1812, it became an
entrepot for food and munitions for the U.S. Army.
Troy supplied the huge army camp at nearby
Greenbush. It was also located near the confluence of
the Hudson and Mohawk rivers. This put Troy on the
supply route for American forces operating on Lake
Ontario and Lake Erie as well as in northern New
York.
Uncle Sam was first mentioned in a broadside entitled
“HIEROGLYPHICS of John Bull’s overthrow: or A
View of the Northern Expedition in Miniature.”
Apparently produced somewhere in eastern New
York in the early spring of 1813, the broadside
contains two references to Uncle Sam in doggerel that
appears under a series of images. The first reference
is in a couplet under Napoleon:
If uncle Sam needs, I’d be glad to assist him,
For it makes my heart bleed we live at such a
distance.
The other reference, which appears under Captain
John Rodgers’s image, predicts that John Bull and his
Indian allies will suffer the same fate as Major
General John Burgoyne in 1777:
He builds on the Indians that now with him join’d,
But if Uncle Sam lives, they will all be Burgoyn’d.
Six months later, on September 7, 1813, the Troy
Post carried a piece supplied by an anti-war Federalist
that spoke of the "ill-luck" of the war that "lights
upon UNCLE SAM'S shoulders." The contributor
then explained: "This cant name for our government
has got almost as current as 'John Bull.' The letters
U.S. on the government waggons, etc. are supposed
to have given rise to it."
How did the phrase actually originate? In 1830, the
New York Gazette published an article that offered an
explanation. It was contributed by an anonymous
reader who was probably moved to write by the
recent death of Elbert Anderson, a government
contractor during the War of 1812. The article linked
Uncle Sam to a Troy beef packer named Samuel
Wilson. A genial and warm-hearted person, Wilson
was known locally as "Uncle Sam," apparently
because he employed so many of his kinsmen.
During the War of 1812, Wilson supplied salted beef
to Anderson. It was shipped in boxes marked
"E.A." (for Elbert Anderson) and "U.S." (for United
States).
When one of Wilson’s employees asked what the
initials "U.S." on the beef boxes stood for, another
reportedly replied, apparently in jest: "Uncle Sam,"
meaning Samuel Wilson. The story made the rounds
among Wilson’s workers, many of whom later
enlisted in the U.S. Army, and before the campaign of
1812 was over, people were referring to the
government itself as "Uncle Sam."
Is the story true? It is certainly credible. It was
contributed by someone who claimed that he heard
the original exchange, and when he later saw the
nickname in print he commented that it be would
strange indeed if "Uncle Sam" became "a national
cognomen." Moreover, Wilson had been supplying
meat to the army since at least 1811, so there was
plenty of time during the war for story to develop.
There are, however, certain problems with the story.
First, there was no mention of Wilson in the original
Troy Post article discussing the origins of the term
even though the editor of this small-town paper surely
knew Wilson and might well have added a note of
explanation if he thought Wilson was part of the
story. But the editor remained silent, and Wilson did
not become linked to the story until the publication of
the New York Gazette article 17 years later.
Moreover, how likely is it that Wilson’s employee
was unfamiliar with the abbreviation “U.S.”? The
most common abbreviation for the nation then was
probably “U. States” or “UStates,” but “US” and even
“USA” were sometimes used. Government property
was sometimes marked “US,” and as government
purchases soared in 1812, doubtless the amount of
property carrying this designation also soared.
American soldiers would have had ample opportunity
to become familiar with this abbreviation during the
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 6
war. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that a soldier
in late 1812, speaking to other soldiers, converted the
abbreviation into “Uncle Sam” and that the use of this
avuncular nickname caught on, and, like some much
military jargon through the ages, quickly spread
through the army. This would be consistent with the
contemporary impression that the term was most
commonly used in the army.
If “Uncle Sam” was the invention of some
anonymous soldier, what was Sam Wilson role in the
story? It is entirely possible that the term was already
in use when it was turned into a local joke at
Wilson’s meat packing warehouse. If this is the case,
then Sam Wilson was not the inspiration for the term,
but rather someone whose association with it in an
important army supply town helped spread the use of
the phrase among soldiers and civilians alike.
After its first appearance, the name “Uncle Sam”
showed up in a number of other newspapers during
the war. The term was often used derisively in the
Federalist press. After the war the term lost its
negative connotation and came into wider use,
eventually replacing Yankee Doodle and Brother
Jonathan in the public prints. Uncle Sam was first
depicted in a cartoon in 1832, but it was not until the
1870s that Harper's Weekly cartoonist Thomas Nast
crystallized his modern appearance: gaunt and
bewhiskered and decked out in striped pants and a top
hat. James Montgomery Flagg gave this image still
wider currency in 1917 with his "I Want You"
recruiting poster, which was used in both world wars
and may be the most famous poster ever created.
Between them, Nast and Flagg established Uncle Sam
as a figure who is universally recognized around the
world.
Don Hickey, a professor of history at Wayne State
College in Nebraska, is the author of The War of
1812: A Forgotten Conflict and Don’t Give Up the
Ship: Myths and Misconceptions of the War of 1812.
“Camp Liberty,” an installation near Sandy Hook,
New Jersey, was the home in 1814 to members of
the Third Regiment of New Jersey Detailed Militia.
The exact site is lost to history. Brief “Glimpses of
Camp Liberty in 1814” appeared in the Proceedings
of the New Jersey Historical Society 8 (1923):
35-38. Does the Journal have a reader up to a
treasure hunt? Contact the Editor.
THE FIRST JEWISH DIPLOMAT
James Madison's Birth Date Recalls Appointment
of Consul to Tunis
Mordecai Manuel Noah (1785-1851) is considered to
be the first person of the Jewish faith appointed as an
American diplomat. The Jewish History Blogspot
took the occasion of President James Madison's birth
date on March 16 (1751) to note the 1813
appointment and to recount Ambassador Noah's brief
diplomatic career. Tasked with working for the
release of Americans who had been held and sold into
slavery by the Barbary pirates, it seems at one point
his commission was revoked. His religion was
believed to have disqualified him from the post in the
eyes of other Administration officials. In the end,
however, he was reimbursed for his personal
expenses and went on to be a power in New York
politics. He was considered at the time to be a most
conspicuous Jewish figure. Noah later served as High
Sheriff of New York, but that service was also not
without controversy. When challenged: “What a pity
that Christians are to be hung by a Jew,” he replied:
“What a pity Christians should have to be hung.”
Source: thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com.
Editor: Mordecai Noah also advocated the
permanent settling of Jews on Grand Island on the
Niagara River near Buffalo, New York, and the War
of 1812 battle sites.
LECTURER IDENTIFIES 73
BRITISH INCURSIONS ALONG
VIRGINIA'S COASTS
Lieutenant Colonel Myron Lyman in his “The War of
1812 in Virginia and the Role of Fauquier” lecture
identified seventy-three (73) encounters with British
forces in Virginia during the War of 1812.
At a lecture in the Bealton (Virginia) Library
scheduled for February 10, 2008, Colonel Lyman also
discussed the actions and locations of Fauquier
County militia units during the war.
Source: What's Happening column for February 7,
2008, posted at www.washingtonpost.com/
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 7
The Patriot War
Part One: We want the whole!
By Collin Murphy
Can Patriots be Opportunists? Should they be? Colin Murphy examines a war within a war.
Long in the public domain, this map sets the stage for Mr. Murphy's article.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 8
The Patriot War
Part One: We want the whole!
By Colin Murphy
The year 1812 is recalled by many as
an important year in military history.
In Eastern Europe Napoleon led an
army of nearly 600,000 men into
Russia and entered the streets of a
burning Moscow in September of
that year. By December, the French
Army staggered out with barely
10,000 remaining. On the Iberian
Peninsula, Wellington undertook an
offensive to drive the French from
Portugal and Spain that included a
victory at Salamanca and the capture
AUTHOR PROFILE:
Colin Murphy is a high school history teacher in
Massachusetts. Mr. Murphy is also a historian focused
on the role of the US Marine Corps during the War of
1812. He is currently a member of the US Marine
Corps Historical Company and Marine Historic
Education, Inc., both are non profit organizations
dedicated to the preservation and presentation of the
history of the US Marine Corps' history within the
broader context of American History. Mr. Murphy is a
prior contributor to this Journal and the author of
USMC-Historical Company's Interpreters Guide for
the War of 1812 Era. He is currently working on a
book focused on the Marine Corps' role at the Second
Battle of St. Leonard's Creek in 1814 and a second
book on the Marine Corps' role in the War of 1812. –
Editor.
of Madrid. While, even though it is scarcely recalled by the rest of the world, the year 1812 is remembered by
some in North America for the war, named for the year it began, in which an aggravated, upstart American
republic declared war upon a preoccupied British Empire. However, the War of 1812 was not the only military
venture undertaken that year by American men at arms. Three months before America would charge blindly into
a war with a world superpower, it was carried, stumbling into another war by single-minded, under-qualified and
over-confident men. These men, believing they were doing the will of the Madison administration, went against
a former superpower that possessed something many Americans coveted; land. That land, owned by a weak and
occupied Spain, was East Florida.
East Florida, almost entirely what would be recognized as Florida on a modern map became a target of fear,
greedy speculation, and intrigue. Similar to its larger “cousin” of a war, the War of 1812, this invasion of
Florida, now known as the Patriot War, was nearly a complete disaster. The difference was that there were some
successes and moments to swell national pride during the war with Great Britain while the Patriot War in Florida
provided no such instances. It was, as one historian aptly named it, a fiasco.
Spanish claims in North America predated those of all other European powers. Her vast, rich colonial empire
spread from the reaches of South America northward to an undefined border in the interior of the North
American continent. By the early 1600s, Spain was competing with both France and Great Britain for territory
in North America. This colonial competition in conjunction with political and economic discord in Europe, led
to several wars over the next one and half centuries that had direct implications for the United States.
In 1761, Spain entered the global conflict known as the Seven Years’ War involving Britain, France, Prussia and
a number of other European powers. Spain entered as an ally to France, opposing Britain with the hope of
checking Britain’s growing worldwide power. Because of Spain’s entrance into the war the British were faced
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 9
with threats from all directions. To the north and west of her colonies were the French territories of New France
and Louisiana. To the south, the Spanish territory of Florida that was the coastal area from the Mississippi River
eastward encompassing parts of the modern states of Mississippi, Alabama, and all of the current state of
Florida. The area between the Mississippi and the Chattahoochee Rivers became known as West Florida and the
rest, East Florida. Further south lay the Spanish-controlled island of Cuba, a host of other smaller islands in the
West Indies and the colonies of Central and South America.
Britain quickly determined to strike at Spain’s most fortified and most lucrative settlement in the Western
Hemisphere at that time - Havana. In August of 1762, a British fleet with 10,000 men completed the conquest
and “delivered a body blow to Spain’s economy and prestige, since all Spanish-American commerce funneled
through Havana.”1
This loss for the Spanish was offset three months later when Spain and France signed the Treaty of San
Ildefonso (the second of three treaties that are known by this name). A particular agreement of this treaty called
for France to pass ownership of the Louisiana to her ally, which resulted in a continuous stretch of Spanish
territory from East Florida, to Louisiana, to Texas, and beyond. By the time the Treaty of Paris was signed in
February of 1763, Britain’s dominance on the oceans had secured many more of the Spanish and French islands
in the West Indies while her dominance on land had secured New France. To regain Havana, Spain was
compelled to trade Cuba for East and West Florida giving all of North America east of the Mississippi River
over to Britain. It would take another global war to return Florida to Spain.
When American colonists decided to remove themselves from the British Empire, Britain’s old adversaries lined
up beside the American cause to one extent or another for reasons that can be best summed up by the old axiom,
“the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Spain supported the American rebels in 1779 for the same reasons that
brought her into the Seven Years’ War and with the added aspiration of regaining what was previously lost.
In November 1782, the American colonies signed a second Treaty of Paris that granted the colonies
independence from the British Empire. This treaty would not go into effect until the end of hostilities between
Britain and the Americans’ French and Spanish Allies. This would come on January 20, 1783 when the Treaty of
Versailles ended hostilities between the European powers. That treaty subsequently returned the Florida
Territory to the Spanish empire and reestablished the continuous swath of Spanish territory that rimmed the Gulf
of Mexico extending inland and west to California. This territory would again be broken apart in 1800.
Under increasing pressure from Napoleonic France, Spain entered into the third Treaty of Ildefonso. This treaty
handed over the Louisiana Territory to Napoleon while Spain maintained a weakening grasp on Florida, both
East and West. Some believed it was a part of the Louisiana Territory and thus belonged to France while others
maintained it was Spanish territory. This question was unsettled. Spanish authorities remained in West Florida
but they held little sway, and were essentially cut off from any guidance or support from their mother country.
In East Florida, since the territory’s return to the Spanish Empire in 1783, the Spanish subjects that had
witnessed the tumultuous changes over the previous decades realized the tenuous situation in which they lived.
The residents of the most heavily fortified city in East Florida, St. Augustine, “felt their weakness and insecurity,
and hardly ventured to go beyond the range of the guns of the castle.”2 For the residents of St. Augustine and the
rest of loyal subjects of Spanish Florida the situation was not going to improve. The land was sparsely populated
and the colony had become economically unimportant to the shrinking and increasingly distracted Spanish
Empire. In Europe that distraction was Napoleon while in North America the Spanish subjects of involuntarily
neglected East Florida continuously heard whispered yearnings from the north.
Since the creation of the American republic the desires of many of its citizens had been focused on the conquest
and settlement of the vast American continent. The Nashville Clarion vividly described this sentiment. The
editorial proclaimed, “Where is it written in the book of fate that the American republic shall not stretch her
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 10
limits from the Capes of the Chesapeake to Nootka Sound, from the Isthmus of Panama to Hudson Bay?” 3
However the obvious problem presented to the people of the fledgling country was that the nation was
essentially sandwiched between the remnants of the “old world” empires to the north, south and west, and Native
American opposition. The Americans were effectively bottled up.
While the first two U.S. Administrations, those of Washington and Adams, held these same desires of
expanding, it would be the third administration, that of Thomas Jefferson, that would take the most significant
step. The Louisiana Purchase was made possible due to the interrelated and continuing intrigue and devastation
within Europe and the French colony of Saint Domingue. The continuing need for money to finance the war in
Europe, combined with the destruction of a French army in Saint Domingue by a slave revolt, turned war of
independence, delivered Napoleon ample reason to sell the territory to the United States. Jefferson’s purchase
of the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon’s France delivered to the Americans an all but incomprehensibly large
tract of land that probably should have soothed the expansionist desires for the foreseeable future.
But
Louisiana was unknown, unsettled, wild and almost certainly peopled by hostile Native Americans. Territories
much closer, some presently under American control, some not, were far more appetizing to the expansionists.
British Upper and Lower Canada to the north, the eroding frontiers in the Old Northwest and Spanish East and
West Florida to the south were the logical stepping-stones before the conquest of the Louisiana Territory and
beyond. These regions were either settled or explored to a great extant giving Americans at large a working
conception of their geography, floral, fauna and current inhabitants.
By the time James Madison took office the Old Northwest was being populated, cleared, plowed and built up.
The Canadas, though sparsely populated, were economically viable and were firmly seated in the increasingly
powerful British Empire. East and West Florida, though, were still in a state of imperial neglect as the Spanish
Empire had far more pressing issues. In late 1807 and early 1808 Napoleon sent his armies into Spain and
Portugal to enforce his Continental System. As a result the Spanish ruling family was deposed, Napoleon’s
brother Joseph was placed on the Spanish throne, and Spain and her colonies were thrown into a state of turmoil.
Coinciding with this imperial neglect was a constant migration of American settlers into the Floridas. In these
Spanish regions it was far more common to come across a person who was a property-seeking American citizen
or an exiled Tory from the War of Independence than it was to find someone born under the Spanish Crown. It
would not be long until these Anglo-Americans developed designs of their own for these Spanish provinces and
when they did these plans often fit those secretly held designs of the expansionist minded US government. Yet,
aside from being the possible target for expansion the reality that the Floridas were geographically connected to
the United States created four particular problems.
The Madison administration also inherited the growing tensions between the United States and Great Britain that
had been developing and escalating over the previous decades. By the beginning of the Nineteenth Century the
disputes between the two countries included the British practice of impressing sailors from American merchant
ships to fill the ranks of the huge Royal Navy in its war against France and perceived incitement of Native
American violence against Americans settling in the frontier territories. Calls for war and the avenging of
national honor reached high point only months before Madison’s election. On June 22, 1807, the HMS Leopard
fired upon the unsuspecting USS Chesapeake and forcefully impressed four American seamen under the pretense
the men were deserters from the Royal Navy. Federalist and Republican alike called for war but the American
government maintained a course of peaceful coercion.
Since Jefferson’s administration the American government hoped to use economic sanctions to force Britain into
acquiescing to the American point of view. Embargoes and “Non-Intercourse” acts were put in place but these
were far more damaging to the American economy than to the British. Americans were forbidden by their own
government to trade with the British Empire and British trade was similarly restricted from the United States.
Thus, smuggling became a profitable and widespread activity and Spanish Florida played a role.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 11
The St. Mary’s River, the border separating the United States and Spanish East Florida, became an entrepột of
import and export for American and international smugglers alike. A fact which was known far and wide due to
its openness and its execution often done in plain view of American officials on the northern bank of the river.
One concerned citizen of Savannah, Georgia made it his duty to inform the governor of Spanish East Florida of
the illegal activity. He wrote, “the existing embargo in the United States which has been laid on for great
political purposes, of which your excellency has doubtlessly been appraised, has been evaded in many instances
in the St. Mary’s River.” The writer concluded that, “it may be presumed that our government is not yet
acquainted with [the smuggling]. Your excellency will therefore excuse an individual for recommending the
circumstances to your wisdom and patriotism.”4 Even with the action so open and so noticeable that a citizen
was able to discern the situation clearly, due to the lack of governmental control in East Florida, the situation
was probably so far out of the governor’s hands that he could not stop the smuggling. That is assuming he
wanted to.
In early in 1808, in an effort to curb or dissuade smuggling the United States Navy dispatched four gunboats to
the area to scour the waterways between the St. Mary’s River and Savannah. One of these gunboats maintained
a station at the town of St. Mary’s, Georgia, a major port of smuggling into the U.S. and within sight of the main
smuggling town of Fernandina on Amelia Island. This small show o0f American military power did little to
slow smuggling, but it did increase the chances of confrontation. On one occasion, in late April, 1808, an
American gunboat seized an American registered ship within Spanish waters. As a result the local Spanish
military commander “threatened to seize on the first American property that should come within his power, if
[the seized vessel] was not given up.”5 Without further evidence it is unclear what happened to the seized ship
and if anything came of the Spanish commander’s specific threats. Yet this incident illustrates the evident
tensions and how similar episodes in the following years tried and strained American-Spanish relations as the
smuggling continued and gain the notice of the government. By early 1812 the Secretary of the Treasury, Albert
Gallatin, began to receive reports “that British goods to an immense amount have been imported into Amelia
Island, with the view of smuggling the same into the United States.” Also coming into Washington were reports
“of illegal slave imports from the Spanish island.”6
In addition to the concerns of smuggling was the pressing and threatening concern that Spanish Florida was a
sanctuary for runaway slaves from the southern states. Until 1790 Spanish authorities had an official policy of
encouraging slaves to come to Florida. This policy was revoked, but slaves still went and more often than not
headed for Native American controlled territory where they would enter into a sort of gentle servitude to the
Indians but would “uniformly testify to the kind treatment they receive[d].”7 This kind treatment included being
on nearly equal status economically and socially and in return they were expected to pull their share with
military services in the case of hostilities. To those of the American south this fed into their greatest fear: armed
Africans meant a constant risk of insurrection among their own slaves supported by those who had already
escaped.
Similar to the fear of an attack of avenging, freedom fighting or dastardly runaway slaves, depending on the
point of view, was the nearly two-century-old threat of Indian attacks from Florida. Under Spanish rule the
Indians maintained autonomous regions in which they were free to continue their lives as they wished which
kept Spanish-Native American relations tolerable. However this hands-off policy, practically outside of Spanish
influence, allowed the Indians the freedom to assert their own “international policy.” The Native Americans,
comprised of the Seminole, Creek and Miccosukee tribes, were quite aware of the American custom of
encroachment, investment and eventual seizing of Indian lands. This, of course, would lead to the inevitable
attacks upon the other. Many Americans, especially those along the Georgia-Florida border who had felt the
sting of raids form Florida, felt it would take the seizure of Florida and the replacement of the ineffective
Spanish authorities to pacify, control or even destroy the Indians.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 12
A last concern, and one that was growing in magnitude as the possibility of war with Great Britain grew
increasingly likely, stemmed from the Spanish-British alliance that had had formed in response to Napoleon’s
invasions into the Iberian Peninsular in 1807 and 1808. As clamor for war against Britain grew louder,
especially since the election of the 'War Hawks' in the 1810 election, President Madison and his administration
began to look at the strategic situations that may develop. If the United States did declare war on Great Britain,
would it be prudent to leave the enemy’s ally in possession of such an obvious base of operations and potential
invasion route? This situation was not lost on the civilian population as well. One “gentleman” in New Orleans,
summing up the sentiments commented in a letter that “if there should be the most distant probability of East
Florida falling into the hands of any European power whatever, we should, without hesitation, fix our standards
at St. Augustine and Pensacola.”8
To the joy of the American government a part of that territory was secured in 1810. In West Florida the
continuous stream of legal and illegal American immigrants into the Spanish territory finally had the outcome
many were hoping for. A “revolution” occurred when American settlers seized power in the territory and
declared independence. They claimed that they were “left without any hope of protection from the mother
country, betrayed by a Magistrate whose duty it was to have provided for [their] safety and tranquility” and that
they had been “exposed to all the evils of a state of anarchy” and it was “[their] duty to provide for [their] own
security.”9 To provide for this security a new government was formed and became known as the Convention of
Florida. A president of the Convention was elected and a letter was immediately sent off to the James Madison.
The President of the Convention, John Rhea, wrote an “expression of their hope and desire that this new
commonwealth may be immediately acknowledged and protected by the Government of the United States as an
integral part of the American Union.”10 The “Revolutionists,” as they were called by the Spaniards, soon wrote a
constitution calling for a republican government, fixed the rate of taxation, agreed upon a flag, and created the
Republic of West Florida. A few months later, on October 27, 1810, the territorial governor of Louisiana arrived
and took possession of West Florida for the United States.11 Protests to this seizure came from Spain and her
ally, Britain but the United States remained unashamed and unaffected. It was commonly believed, and if not
believed, members of the American government tried to act as if they believed, that West Florida was a rightful
possession of the United States through the Louisiana Purchase.
Political enemies of the administration decried the absorption of West Florida as an act of aggression against a
nation, Spain, with which the United States was at peace. Still, the majority of American nation was in an
expansionist mood and slowly moving towards all out war in the name of expansion (though in the guise of
“Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights), especially since the election of the War Hawks and, to many, West Florida was
a mere stepping stone.
One of the most outspoken War Hawks, a characteristic that won him the position as the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Henry Clay, the most outspoken War Hawk, delivered a speech concerning the Floridas in late
1810. Though trying to maintain a tone that he probably hoped would endear him and the United States as a
reluctant conqueror, his true feelings as an unabashed expansionist could not be hidden. He declared:
I am not, sir, in favor of cherishing the passion of conquest. But I must be permitted to conclude
by declaring my hopes to see, ere long, the new United States (if you will allow me to use that
expression) embracing not only the old thirteen states, but the entire country East of the
Mississippi, including East Florida. and some of the territories to the North of us also.12
Not needing to be diplomatic with words, the Concord Gazette, published in Concord, Massachusetts, stated the
sentiments in words Speaker Clay wished he could use. It read, “If we can take West-Florida so easy, we had
better include also East-Florida and Canada. We want the whole.”13
(Editor – Mr. Murphy’s Narrative will be continued in the Journal’s next issue. )
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 13
R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History (New York: Harper & Row,
1970), 677.
2
George R. Fairbanks, History of Florida (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1871), 244.
3
Julius W. Pratt, Expansionists of 1812 (Gloucester, MA, Peter Smith, 1957), 14.
4
Anonymous to East Florida Governor, April 10, 1808. Verso-Anonymous addressed to James Madison, from
Library of Congress, James Madison Papers, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mjm.10_0215_0217 (accessed April 19,
2007).
5
“Philadelphia, May 11; The Schooner Maggy..,” Washington Federalist, May, 18, 1808, America’s Historical
Newspapers 1690-1922.
Groton Dunstable Regional High School Library, Groton, MA,
http://infoweb.newsbank.com (accessed April 10, 2007).
6
Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1990),
169.
7
James G. Cusick, The Other War of 1812: The Patriot War and the American Invasion of Spanish East
Florida (Gainesville FL:University Press of Florida, 2003), 47.
8
“Extract of a Letter from a Gentleman in this City, dated N.O. Nov. 16, 1810.” New Jersey Journal, January
1, 1811, America’s Historical Newspapers 1690-1922. Groton Dunstable Regional High School Library,
Groton, MA, http://infoweb.newsbank.com (accessed April 5, 2007).
9
John Rhea, “By the Representatives of the People of West Florida, in Convention assembled. A Declaration,”
American State Papers: Foreign Affairs 3:396, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsp.html
10
Letter from John Rhea to President James Madison, October 10, 1810, American State Papers: Foreign
Affairs 3:395.
11
Caroline Mays Brevard, A History of Florida: From the Treaty of 1763 to Our Own Times (Deland, FL: The
Florida Historical Society, 1924), Volume 1, 28-29.
12
“Intelligencer; Jan. 8; Mr. Clay’s; Florida; Mississippi; East Florida; National; North;” Salem Gazette, January
18, 1811, America’s Historical Newspapers 1690-1922. Groton Dunstable Regional High School Library,
Groton, MA, http://infoweb.newsbank.com (accessed April 5, 2007).
13
“West Florida; East Florida; Canada;” Concord Gazette, January 29, 1811, America’s Historical Newspapers
1690-1922. Groton Dunstable Regional High School Library, Groton, MA., http://infoweb.newsbank.com
(accessed April 25, 2007).
1
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 14
through the late 1800s Navy period.
VISIT1812
Fort Norfolk, Virginia
A Virginia Historic Landmark
Norfolk, Virginia, was one of the nineteen harbors
ordered fortified by the new national government in
1794 and over the next two decades Fort Norfolk rose
along the shore of the Elizabeth River and what was
to become one of the busiest ports in the nation. After
the Chesapeake-Leopard affair in 1807 the earthen
walls and wooden supports gave way to the brick and
masonry structure seen today.
During the War of 1812 the fort was one of the key
defenses to Norfolk as it guarded the way to both the
inner harbor where the US Frigate Constellation was
blockaded for most of the war and the Gosport
shipyard. From her complement of regular
artillerymen and militia soldiers, reinforcements
flowed to nearby Craney Island where a determined
British assault was turned back in June 1813. The fort
played a significant role in diverting the blockading
British forces who wreaked havoc along the
Chesapeake Bay from Harve de Grace in Maryland to
Hampton across the Roads.
After the War of 1812 came periods of disuse,
reactivation as a Civil War river battery and prison, a
Naval ordnance depot and finally home to the Office
of the District Engineer of the US Army Corp of
Engineers. And oh, yes, the Ghost. It remains today
a priceless historical treasure amidst one of the
bustling seaports on the East Coast.
The Fort is a joint project of the Norfolk Historical
Society and the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Norfolk District. Tours and special events occur
throughout the year. Visitors can take a fourteen stop
walking tour of the Fort anytime the Fort is open.
Among the 1812-era features are the Main Gate and
Dungeon, the Carpenter's Shop and Storeroom, the
Officers' Quarters, the Soldiers' Barracks, the Main
Battery, and the Guardhouse. Also on the tour are
facilities and improvements made by the US Navy
during its use of the fort as a depot. These include
storage, rail, magazine and other workshop facilities
that survive. The 1993 renovation of the Guard
House made possible by a grant from the National
Society of the Colonial Dames of the Commonwealth
of Virginia allows visitors to see the progression of
inner wall construction from the original buildings
Fort Norfolk is located on the western side of
downtown Norfolk, Virginia. Take Brambleton
Avenue (U.S. Highway 58) to Colley Avenue, then
take Colley Avenue towards the Elizabeth River for
three blocks until it dead ends at Front Street. Turn
right onto Front Street for one block until you reach
the gates of Fort Norfolk. Ample parking is available
inside the Corps of Engineers reservation during
those times the fort is open to the public.
The Fort is regularly open during the months of July
and August on Saturday and Sunday between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Periodically the Fort
is open for special events and tours. Visitors are
encouraged to contact the Norfolk Historical Society
(Tel: 757.625.1720 for information and schedules.
A Safety and Security Note: Fort Norfolk was built
for war and has many steep slopes, uneven surfaces,
and sudden drop-offs. Visitors are encouraged to
exercise common sense and caution during their visit
and closely supervise young children. Moving too
close to the fort's walls, sea walls or wharf is not
recommended. Relic collecting, possession of metal
detectors or digging within the Corps' reservation is
strictly prohibited. Alcoholic beverages and firearms
are prohibited and smoking is not allowed within the
buildings. Picnicking on the grounds is welcomed,
but visitors must be prepared clean up after their use
and to take their trash away.
The War of 1812 defenders of Norfolk were a
distinguished and literate group. Many left diaries
and commentaries on their wartime experiences and
these are available at academic depositories
throughout the state and along the East Coast. A
determined historical researcher could admirably
contribute to the War of 1812 scholarship by
developing a detailed narrative on the successful
defense of Norfolk and this region of Virginia during
the war. Ideas, anyone? - Editor.
The Editor is always looking for nominations for the
Journal's Visit 1812 series. Does any reader have
such a nomination?
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 15
WAR LEADER PROFILE
JOHN TEMPLER SHUBRICK
1788-1815, US Naval Officer
John Templer Shubrick was an American original.
As a junior officer during the War of 1812 he was
engaged in arguably more naval actions than any of
his contemporaries. His biography could very well be
the outline for a new history on the Navy during the
War of 1812. As our first War Leader in this Series,
we honor him. - Editor.
He was born September 12, 1788, on Bull's Island on
the coast of South Carolina to Thomas Shubrick and
Mary Banford Shubrick. John, the eldest of four
brothers, each of whom served in the U.S. Navy, was
educated in Charleston and under the Reverend
Thomas Thacher of Dedham, Massachusetts.
Returning to Charleston in 1804, he began the study
of law under his relative, William Drayton. However,
he decided upon a naval career, and on August 19,
1806, he received a commission as a midshipman.
He learned his trade on several pre-war assignments.
Assigned to the USS Chesapeake, Shubrick was
aboard when the ship was attacked and boarded by
HMS Leopard in June 1807.
In 1808 he was transferred to the Argus; in 1810 to
the United States; and after a disagreement with a
fellow officer, to the Viper as an acting Lieutenant.
By 1811 he was transferred to the Siren as an Acting
First Lieutenant. On May 28, 1812, just one month
before the declaration of war, he received his
commission as a Lieutenant and joined the USS
Constitution, then commanded by Captain Isaac Hull.
Shubrick participated in the Constitution's escape
from the British squadron between July 17-20 and
served in command of the quarterdeck guns as Fifth
Lieutenant during the engagement with HMS
Guerriere. He was commended by Hull for his
personal courage and coolness under fire.
Shubrick continued to serve aboard the Constitution
until the end of the year and consequently fought
under Captain William Bainbridge, again on the gun
deck, when the Constitution defeated HMS Java on
December 29, 1812.
In January 1813, he was transferred to USS Hornet,
commanded by James Lawrence. On February 24,
1813, after the Hornet disabled the HMS Peacock,
Lawrence sent Shubrick aboard the British ship to
determine damages. Shubrick reported that the
Peacock was not salvageable, and Lawrence ordered
it evacuated.
Several biographic references place Shubrick at
Norfolk in June 1813. However, here he is confused
with his older brother, W. Banford Shubrick. The
brother was the officer who led that attack on the
blockading British vessels at Hampton Roads. (see
Hallahan, The Battle of Craney Island (1986)).
Shubrick served briefly aboard the USS United States
again, but by the close of 1814 he was again under his
old commander, Captain Stephen Decatur, aboard
USS President. He was among those captured when
that ship fell to a British squadron on 15 January
1815 and for a time was interned at Bermuda.
For his wartime service, Lieutenant Shubrick
received three silver medals and the thanks of
Congress. During the summer of 1814, Shubrick had
married Elizabeth Matilda Ludlow. Their only child,
Edmund Templer Shubrick, in his time followed his
father into the United States Navy.
Following the war, Shubrick again served under
Decatur aboard the new USS Guerriere in the brief
conflict with Algiers. On June 17, 1815, the
American squadron took an Algerian frigate and brig,
forcing the Dey of Algiers into a new treaty.
Shubrick, now in his first command aboard the USS
Epervier, was directed to deliver the Treaty to
Washington. The Epervier was seen to pass Gibraltar
about July 10, 1815. The ship was lost in the Atlantic
with all hands on that trip back to the United States.
Additional Sources
American National Biography. Volume 19, New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Cooper, James F. “John Templer Shubrick,” In Lives
of Distinguished American Naval Officers. 2
volumes. Philadelphia, PA: Cary, Hart, 1846.
Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler, Editors,
“John Templer Shubrick,” In The Encyclopedia of the
War of 1812. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1997.
National Cyclopedia of American Biography. Volume
8, New York, NY: J. T. White, 1896.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 16
PUBLISHER'S PROFILE
One of the new, occasional features of the Journal
will be a profile of publishing houses having current
books in-print on the War of 1812. Reader's should
note that the Editor has contacted the houses
furnishing information for this feature and has made
no arrangement other than to relay information
which may be available on-line or through the
publisher itself. The information is provided to
increase the reader's reading options. - Editor.
The Nautical & Aviation Publishing Company was
founded in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1979, to publish
high quality naval history, fiction, and reference
books. The editorial emphasis was initially on naval
aviation and Marine Corps history. Soon the program
was widened to include all military subjects of
interest to members of the armed forces.
The company has been emphasizing 18th and 19th
Century history and fiction in the last few years.
N&A has steadily published history books about the
War of 1812 and currently has four in print.
Tyrone G. Martin has edited The USS
“Constitution's” Finest Fight, 1815: The Journal of
Acting Chaplain Assheton Humphreys, US Navy. It
relates the day-to-day experiences aboard the USS
Constitution during the cruise in which he
encountered both the HMS Cyane and HMS Levant.
It is a 112-page illustrated hardcover book (ISBN
1-877853-60-7).
N&A also published While Washington Burned: The
Battle for Fort Erie – 1814, by Joseph W. A.
Whitehorne. The summer of 1814 saw what is
arguably the fiercest fighting of the war. “While
Washington burned,” costly fighting raged along the
Niagara frontier. Dr. Whitehorne provides a vivid
narrative of the fighting in, around and for Fort Erie.
This book is in its second printing and contains a
useful appendix providing an order of battle and the
command structure (ISBN 1-877853-18-6).
Familiar to all War of 1812 naval enthusiasts in C.S.
Forester's The Captain From Connecticut. Captain
Josiah Peabody and his intrepid crew battle the
enemy of their nation in this the seventh printing of
this classic tale of the sea (ISBN 1-877853-30-5).
Readers can also find Scott Sheads' Fort McHenry
published by this house. Baltimore's Fort McHenry is
perhaps the most famous War of 1812 fort and Scott
Sheads may be its most famous chronicler. This 166
page hardback has extensive bibliographical
references including a listing of Mr. Shead's
numerous unpublished reports and articles (ISBN
1-877853-40-2).
Out-of-print from this publisher is The Battle of
Lundy's Lane by Donald Graves and The Battle of
Sackett's Harbor by Patrick Wilder. Both of these
were good reads and may be available in the
secondary book markets.
The company is headquartered at 2055 Middleburg
Lane, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 (Tel:
843.856.0561; Fax: 843.856.3164). Its web address is
www.nauticalaviation.bizland.com/. We, the War of
1812 community, look forward to additional
contributions to the War's literary scholarship..
____________________
WAR OF 1812 PUZZLER
Who was Nicholas Long and what role did he play
during the War of 1812?
Long was a Colonel in the 43rd US Infantry and was
ordered by Major General Thomas Pinckney to
command US forces on the North Carolina coast. He
completed a thorough study of coastal defenses there,
submitting it to Pinckney in February 1814.
References:
Lemmon, Sarah McCulloh, Frustrated Patriots:
North Carolina and the War of 1812. Chapel Hill,
NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1973,
pp. 47, 65, 137-38.
Heitman, Francis B., Historical Register and
Dictionary of the United States Army. Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1903, Vol. 1, p. 640.
Angley, Wilson, History of Fort Johnston on the
Lower Cape Fear. Southport, NC: Southport
Historical Society, Inc., 1996, Chapter 4, pp. 52-67.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 17
THE ROLE OF THE STATES
South Dakota and the War of 1812:
A Bibliographic Essay
by
Harold W. Youmans
South Dakota is not a state that one thinks about
when planning an essay on the War of 1812: too
remote from the action; too late in territorial
progress; too few people, places or incidents.
However, scholarship undeterred is the best
scholarship and if one is interested in the effects of
the War on the American West, South Dakota would
be a place to start. Hence, this essay. - Editor.
When writing about South Dakota in the early part of
the nineteenth century three historical stories
converge during the period the War of 1812 was
fought: continental hegemony, the fur trade and the
influence by and on the Native Americans in the
region. Few Europeans left records of their voyages
into what became the territorial boundaries of South
Dakota. The early visitors were mostly French and
English traders moved by the competition for furs
driven by the trading houses in Montreal, London and
China.
Americans came slightly later. Thomas Jefferson and
others drove them west on the heels of Lewis and
Clark and soon travelers, traders and empire builders
were on the move. Henry Marie Brackenridge,
Journal of a Voyage up the River Missouri (1816)
John Bradbury, Travels in the Interior of America
(1817) as well as writers between Lewis and Clark
(1814) and Maximilian Wied-Neuwied (1843) give
the researcher a taste for the West during this period.
Scholarship ebbs and flows like most human
endeavors and the first decades of the twentieth
century witnessed home grown efforts to explore the
role of South Dakota during the War. The state's
Historical Society commissioned and published a
short series of articles on the War between 1908 and
1924. Charles LeRaye was an early traveler in the
Missouri River Valley. His diary first appeared in a
work by Jervis Cutler in 1812. The diary is reprinted
in Volume 4 of the South Dakota Historical
Collections (1908). John B. Renville (1832? - 1903)
was interviewed by Doane Robinson (1856-1946)
about 1900. Robinson went on to pen his “A Sioux
Indian View of the Last War with England,” in 1908.
This appears in Volume 5 of the South Dakota
Historical Collections.
Robinson continued his work and in 1924 his “South
Dakota and the War of 1812,” appeared in Volume 12
of the Collections. This piece is essential to anyone's
study of the events because for the first time the
narrative is woven around the confluence of the
territorial ambitions, commercial fur trade, and the
role of the Natives on the region. A brief history of
Fort Manuel is appended to this article.
When the written word and personal remembrances
fade, archeology steps in to fill the gaps. Professor G.
Hubert Smith joins our efforts with his work on Fort
Manuel, South Dakota. What motives pushed Manuel
Lisa (1772-1820) to drive his hunters and traders
north up the Missouri into South Dakota on the eve of
the war is a monumental study itself. But there it was
in 1812: Fort Manuel, sitting astride the traditional
southern routes of British activity in the area.
Smith and John Ludwickson fill some gaps in their
Fort Manuel: The Archeology of an Upper Missouri
Trading Post of 1812-1813 (Special Publication of
the South Dakota Archaeological Society, Number 7,
Vermillion, SD, 1981). The historical narrative is
based in part on John C. Luttig's Journal of a FurTrading Expedition on the Upper Missouri,
1812-1813, contemporaneously written, but published
by the Missouri Historical Society in 1920.
Interest in the study of the role of international
hegemony abounds. How was it that representatives
of the Sioux peoples are counted among the Indian
allies of British agent William McKay in the see-saw
battles for Prairie du Chein in 1814? Peter Pond,
Thomas Anderson and Missouri Governor William
Clark played their parts there as well. Look for the
future US President, Captain Zachary Taylor, too.
Human interest, a short term driver of history, also
appears in our South Dakota narrative.
What
happened to Lewis and Clark's Sacajawea
(Sakakawea) and where might she have died? Might
it have been at Fort Manuel? Grace R. Hebard's work,
Sacajawea: A Guide and Interpreter of the Lewis and
Clark Expedition (Glendale, CA: Clark Co., 1933)
has produced an apparently never-ending series of
articles on that perplexing historical sidelight.
As for South Dakota, historical riches rivaling the fur
trade await the new researcher. Just turn that page.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 18
South Dakota and the War of 1812: A Bibliographic Essay
The fate of Lewis and Clark's guide, Sacajawea (Sakakawea) following the return from the Pacific
Coast remains an historic puzzle bringing extensive research and debate. One thought is that she may
have died at Fort Manuel, South Dakota.
A National Archive Photo Image
By most accounts Fort Manuel lies today under the waters of the US Army Corps of Engineer's Oahe
Reservoir on the Missouri River at Gavins Point, near Yankton. A replica has been constructed near
Kenel, South Dakota.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No. 1, Page 19
BOOK REVIEW
Union 1812: The Americans who Fought
the Second War of Independence
by A.J. Langguth
The Editor is deeply grateful to the folks at Harvard
University and especially the publisher of the
Harvard Crimson who has graciously granted
permission to republish this review. The opinions
expressed do not necessarily represent the Editor of
this Journal or the members of the War of 1812
Consortium, Inc.
The War That Assured Independence
By Jessica C. Coggins, Crimson Staff Writer
The War of 1812 is perhaps known for only two
book's reasons. One is the burning of
Washington, D.C. The second is the writing of
the Star Spangled Banner— courtesy of Francis
Scott Key witnessing a still waving flag amidst
the rubble of Forts McHenry.
In “Union 1812: The Americans who Fought the
Second War of Independence,” author A.J. Langguth
(Editor's Note: Harvard, Class of ’55) continues a
historical journey that began with “Patriots: The Men
Who Started the American Revolution.”
Clocking in at a little over 400 pages, Langguth
begins his latest book with George Washington’s
return to Mount Vernon in 1783. Washington was
actually coaxed into attending the Constitutional
Convention by James Madison.
Langguth details the construction of the country with
impeccable detail, but his prose never borders on the
tedious. He avoids the run-of-the-mill history lesson
by inserting various anecdotes about America’s
founding fathers.
Langguth—a former correspondent for the New York
Times—informs us that a parade honoring Alexander
Hamilton in New York “was marred by mishap when
the arm of the statue representing Hamilton broke off
—the arm holding the Constitution.”
The book is filled with these factoids humanizing
figures that have become emblazoned in our
historical memory. Lonely hearts at Harvard may take
some solace in knowing that it was only through the
clever machinations of Aaron Burr and Martha
Washington that James Madison’s five-foot five-inch
bod landed Dolley Payne, a “buxom brunette with
remarkably fair skin.” The future Mrs. Madison
would later spark a fashion trend as each of her
dresses were “set off with ostrich plumes and feathery
birds of paradise and topped those creations with
matching headdresses from her collection of bright
turbans and crimson caps.”
The meat of Langguth’s book is the buildup that
culminated in the War of 1812. Regarding the
escalating tensions between America and Britain—
manifested in the tense naval skirmish between the
Chesapeake and Leopard in 1807—Jefferson is
quoted as saying, “never since the battle of Lexington
have I seen the country in such a state of
exasperation.”
This vexation is equally felt by the reader. With
Langguth detailing each exhaustive event concerning
the War of 1812, one almost feels like this is a history
crash course. However, the fluidity of Langguth’s
prose keeps the book from devolving into a boring,
lecture-like encyclopedia.
When Langguth arrives at the actual war we feel
sufficiently acquainted with William Henry Harrison,
Andrew Jackson, Davy Crockett, and other figures
likely to show up on “Jeopardy.”
The Battle of New Orleans, famously fought after the
Treaty of Ghent—which formally ended the war—is
chronicled with each spectacular and likely littleknown detail. Jackson, feeling the constraints of his
small army, even sent a proclamation to black
recruiters, saying, “Through a mistaken policy, you
have heretofore been deprived of a participation in
the glorious struggle for national rights in which your
country is engaged—this no longer shall exist. As
sons of freedom you are now called upon to defend
your most inestimable blessing.”
Langguth further describes the condition of the bayou
and Jackson’s often shaky “backbay defense.”
The book closes with a quotation from Madison that
the war had produced, “happiness and harmony in
every section of our beloved country.”
Harvard Crimson Reviewer Jessica C. Coggins can
be reached at [email protected].
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 20
THE DOCUMENTS
“Tall Men Make Good Soldiers”
WILLIAM COBBETT
William Cobbett (1763-1835) was an English social
reformer who lived in both America and Britain over
his lifetime. He is viewed by many as favoring the
Americans during the War of 1812. Few remember
he left America for England in 1800 when his
opponents brought libel actions against him and left
England for America after a law suppressing
radicalism was passed there in 1817. In his “Advice
to Young Men,” published about 1829, he muses over
the cause of the English “defeat” during the War.
Your Editor, at a full 5' 8” on his tallest day with
more than 28 years in the U.S. Army holds his own
opinion. What is yours? - Editor.
“Abundance of good food is the cause, to be sure, of
the superior size and strength of the people of that
country (the United States).
“Nor is this, in any point of view, an unimportant
matter. A tall man is, whether as labourer,
carpenter, bricklayer, soldier, or almost anything
else, worth more than a short man; he can look
over a higher thing, he can reach higher and wider; he
can move on from place to place faster; in mowing
grass or corn he takes a wider swath, in pitching he
wants a shorter prong; in making buildings he does
not so soon want a ladder or a scaffold; in fighting he
keeps his body farther from the point of his sword.
“To be sure, a man may be tall and weak; but this is
the exception and not the rule: height and weight and
strength, in men as in speechless animals, generally
go together. Aye, and in enterprise and courage too,
the powers of the body have a great deal to do.
Doubtless there are, have been, and always will be,
great numbers of small and enterprising and brave
men; but it is not in nature, that generally speaking,
those who are conscious of their inferiority in point of
bodily strength, should possess the boldness of those
who have a contrary description.
“To what but this difference in the size and strength
of the opposing combatants are we to ascribe the
ever-to-be-blushed-at events of our last war against
the United States! The hearts of our seamen and
soldiers were as good as those of the Yankees: on
both sides they had sprung from the same stock: on
both sides equally well supplied with all the materials
of war: if in either side, the superior skill was on ours:
French, Dutch, Spaniards, all had confessed our
superior prowess: yet, when, with our whole
undivided strength, and to that strength added the
flush and pride of victory and conquest, crowned
even in the capital of France; when, with all these
tremendous advantages, and with all the nations of
the earth looking on, we came foot to foot and yardarm to yard-arm with the Americans, the result was
such as an English pen refuses to describe.
“What, then, was the great cause of this result, which
filled us with shame and the world with
astonishment? Not the want of courage in our men.
There were, indeed, some moral causes at work, but
the main cause was, the great superiority of size and
bodily strength on the part of the enemy's soldiers and
sailors. It was so many men on each side; but it was
men of different size and strength; and, on the side of
the foe men accustomed to daring enterprise from the
consciousness of that strength. ...”
Sources:
Cobbett, William. Advice to young men, and
(incidentally), to young women, in the middle and
higher ranks of life: in a series of letters addressed to
a youth, a bachelor, a lover, a husband, a father, a
citizen or a subject. London: Printed by Mills, Jowett
and Mills: Published by the author, 1829.
Note that there are many reprints and excerpts from
this work including this one in the Editor's personal
library:
Morpurgo, J. E., Editor. Cobbett's America: a
selection from the writings of William Cobbett.
London: Folio Society, 1985. (see pages 157-158).
____________________
From the “Where Did He Get That” file: According
to Thomas L. Purvis, Revolutionary America,
1763-1800 (New York, NY: Facts on File, 1995),
American soldiers were on average 5' 8” tall; their
British counterparts were 5' 7” and the Americans ate
four times as many turnips as potatoes. A Reviewer
notes that the British did not catch up until 1900
(presumably in height, not turnip consumption).
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 21
WAR OF 1812 CHRONOLOGY
May through July
In each issue of the Journal, we present a partial
time-line of War of 1812 events. This issue presents
the May through July events. Help us expand this
feature – Editor.
Pre-War Timeline:
1806: May 16: GB lays blockade, Brest to Elbe River
1807: June 22: Chesapeake - Leopard affair
1807: July 2: US ports closed to armed British ships
1810: June 23: John Jacob Astor forms Pacific Fur
Company, plans Astoria expedition
1811: May 16: President - Little Belt affair
1812: May 10: John Clarke arrives at Fort Astoria
1812: May 14: US annexes Pearl to Perdido Rivers in
West Florida; adds to Territory of Mississippi
Events in 1812:
June 1: Madison delivers War Message to Congress
June 4: US House of Representatives votes for war
June 17: US Senate votes for war
June 18: US declares war on Great Britain
June 23: GB repeals Orders in Council
June 26: Efforts to effect armistice underway
June 29: US Schooners Sophia and Island Packet
taken by British in the St. Lawrence
July 12: Hull's army enters/invades Upper Canada
July 16: Skirmishes at the Canard River
July 17: British capture Fort Mackinac, MI
July 19: Provincial Marine attacks Sacketts Harbor
Events in 1813:
May 01: Siege at Fort Meigs, OH, commences
May 03: British raid on Havre de Grace, MD
May 03: Sir James Lucas Yeo arrives at Quebec
May 08: US accepts a Russian mediation offer
May 27: British abandon Fort Erie; Fort George
captured by Dearborn and Chauncey
May 29: British attack on Sacketts Harbor
June 1: Br Frigate Shannon defeats/captures US
Frigate Chesapeake
June 6: Battle of Stoney Creek, Upper Canada
June 8: Skirmish at the Forty Mile Creek
June 9: Americans abandon Fort Erie
June 13: British repulsed at Burlington, Vermont
June 19: British squadron appears at Cleveland, OH
June 20: Frigate Constellation's crew attempts to take
British vessels in Elizabeth River (Norfolk), VA
June 22: Battle of Craney Island (Norfolk), VA
June 24: Battle of Beaver Dams, Upper Canada
June 25: British attack on Hampton, VA
June 27: Privateer Teazer blown up in Mahone Bay,
Nova Scotia
July 1: Astor's partners resolve to sell Fort Astoria
July 3: US Sloops Growler and Eagle captured near
Ile aux Noix
July 5: British refuse Russian offer of mediation
July 5: Raid on Fort Schlosser, NY
July 8: Action at Butler's Farm
July 26: General Proctor ends Fort Meigs siege
July 31: “Murray's Raid” on Plattsburg, NY
July 31: Second US occupation of York, UC
Events in 1814:
May 1: William Clark leaves St. Louis, MO, to
establish a fort at Prairie du Chien
May 6: Commodore Yeo's raid on Fort Oswego, NY
May 14: British attack on Otter Creek, Vermont
May 14: Campbell's raid into Upper Canada
May 18: Relief expedition to Fort Mackinac arrives
May 29: Skirmish at Sandy Creek, New York
May 30: British extend sea blockade to New England
June 2: US fort at Prairie du Chien established
June 28: Action near Odeltown, Lower Canada
June 28: US ship Wasp II defeats Br ship Reindeer
June 28: Br expedition leaves Fort Mackinac to
capture Prairie du Chien
July 3: British surrender Fort Erie, Upper Canada
July 5: Battle of Chippewa, Upper Canada
July 11: British ship Leander captures US ship
Rattlesnake
July 16: Action at Sturgeon's Creek (Pointe au Playe),
Upper Canada
July 18: Action at Champlain Village, New York
July 18: US surrenders Fort Sullivan (Eastport), ME
July 18: Burning of St. Davids
July 19: Action at Rock River, Illinois
July 20: US surrenders Fort Shelby, Prairie du Chien
July 20: Fort St. Joseph burned and schooner Mink
captured by Sinclair
July 20: Trials at the Ancaster Bloody Assizes
July 21: Raid on Sault Ste. Marie
July 25: Battle of Lundy's Lane, Upper Canada
July 26: Sinclair's squadron off Mackinac Island
Events in 1815:
May 24: American Rangers in action near Fort
Howard, Wisconsin
June 30: US Ship Peacock defeats Br Ship Nautilus
July 3: US and GB agree to commercial treaty
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 22
BEFORE THE BATTLE OF HORSESHOE BEND
Part I: Origins of the Creek War of 1813-1814
By Charles R. Burns
The Creek Indian War occurred because of the conflicts that came about due to
white settlers encroaching on Creek Indian land. Though this encroachment was
the primary issue that led to the war, other circumstances helped to accelerate it.
At the same time, tensions between the upper portion of the Creek nation and settlers began to rise, hostilities
were mounting between the United States and Great Britain. These hostilities culminated as the War of 1812.
The issues surrounding the War of 1812 are many, but they basically consist of disputes on matters such as
territorial sovereignty and maritime rights. James Madison, President of the United States during the onset of the
Creek War, explained in his war message issued June 1, 1812 that the British government was guilty of showing
hostility toward the United States. The President remarked that, “[u]nder pretended blockades…our commerce
has been plundered in every sea, the great staples of our country have been cut off from their legitimate markets,
and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and maritime interests….” Madison also mentioned in his “War
Message” that “[i]n reviewing the conduct of Great Britain…attention…is drawn to the warfare just renewed by
the savages…a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features
peculiarly shocking to humanity...”1
In attempts to weaken the United States’ hold on the southern states, Britain encouraged a native rebellion
against the encroaching white settlers. This rebellion was not hard to incite due to the large number of Creeks
outraged by the growing numbers of settlers taking over their hunting lands. These angry Creeks were like a dam
on the verge of bursting, and the British pushed just hard enough to cause it to break. So, even though the Creek
War was connected to the War of 1812 it should be viewed as a conflict that just as well could have stood alone.2
The driving force that brought settlers into Creek Territory was the desire to produce cotton. Cotton had become
one of the major cash crops by the late eighteenth century due to the invention of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin. The
gin allowed for cotton to be easily and economically processed. By the early nineteenth century, settlers were
scurrying all over the countryside to produce what would later become known in the South as “king cotton.” The
soils of the Mississippi Territory were prime for producing the cash crop, but not unlimited. Land was becoming
increasingly scarce in what is today Alabama and the nutrients needed to successfully produce cotton were
becoming drained by over farming. Expanding further into Creek territory was becoming the only reasonable
solution for the white settlers.3
Benjamin Hawkins, Indian Agent for the United States government, devised a plan to promote cotton agriculture
in Creek Territory. This plan entailed Americanizing Creek society by transforming the Indians into farmers
instead of hunters. Creek hunting land was vast, therefore limiting the amount of farmable territory for white
settlers. By converting the Creeks into farmers the amount of land the Creeks needed to produce food would be
reduced into small sectioned-off farming plots that would in return allow more room for white settlers.4
After exploring the territory of the Creek nation, Hawkins deduced that the northern half of the region was more
suitable for cotton agriculture than the swampy regions of the southern half. This observation made by Hawkins
did not properly assess the entire southern portion of the Creek Nation. He overlooked what would become
known as Alabama’s Black Belt, the state’s most agriculturally productive strip of land. The Northern or Upper
Creek region had not been inundated by European culture as had the Lower region of Creek Territory near the
Alabama River. The steady trade with Europeans, particularly the Spanish, familiarized the Lower Creeks with
European customs and made them more inclined to accept Hawkins’ plan. It was not uncommon for Europeans
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 23
who traded among the Creeks of the Lower Mississippi Territory to marry Creek women and produce mixed
blood offspring. Often, these mixed blood Creeks would become wealthy due to their willingness to adopt
European market systems that would in turn promote trade. But, it was the Upper Creek Territory that was
desired for cotton agriculture, and it was the Upper Creeks who opposed becoming Europeanized.5
Though intermarrying between white traders and Creek Indians was more prevalent in the Lower Territory, it did
occasionally extend into the northern regions of the Creek Nation. Hawkins saw hope in his plan because of the
progress made by Robert Grierson, a white trader among the Hillabee Creeks of the Upper Creek Territory.
Grierson had married an Indian woman, had five children with her, and set up an establishment for
manufacturing cotton cloth. This establishment employed 11 Indian, white, and black female workers.6
Look for details on the Creek War in installments of
Charles Burn's narrative in future issues of the Journal.
Hawkins’ plan was problematic for the Creek Nation in more ways than one; not only would it take land away
from the Indians, it would also destroy what was left of their culture. The traditional lifestyle of the Creek
Indian had already been altered due to a dependency on European trade, but hunting for food was still central to
their existence. Transforming them into European-style farmers would just come short of stripping them of their
identity. Hawkins believed that as the Creeks became “civilized” their traditional customs would be forgotten.7
In an attempt to reclaim control over their land and culture the Creeks turned to a powerful Shawnee leader
Tecumseh. Tecumseh attempted to rally the Creek tribes along the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama Rivers in a
war against the whites. He promoted a war based more on philosophical issues than political ones. He argued
that the Creeks should reject the white culture that they had adopted through trade and the efforts of Benjamin
Hawkins, in order to reclaim their traditional values. In reclaiming their former customs, the Creeks would be
able to prevail over the whites. Tecumseh encouraged this abandonment of white culture by advising the Creeks
to kill their cattle and hogs and not to farm or weave cotton. He stated that if they put their faith in the
customary behavior of the northern Shawnee tribes, the Americans would become frightened and unable to do
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 24
battle. Furthermore, the ground would become a quagmire and hold the Americans in place, making it possible
for the Creeks to attack them with their war clubs. These clubs were painted red to represent war, earning the
rebelling faction of Upper Creeks the name Red Sticks.8
Not all Creeks were willing to answer Tecumseh’s call, and as a result the Creek nation became divided into two
distinct groups, Lower Creeks and the Red Sticks (Upper Creeks). The Red Stick Creeks were inspired by
Tecumseh’s call to abandon American influence and return to their traditional way of life. The Lower Creeks
saw merit in Hawkins’ plan and were satisfied with becoming more assimilated into European Culture.9
What Tecumseh created was a nationalistic movement among many Creeks that had British support. The United
States saw this as Britain directly interfering with its commerce. Not only did the movement create trouble for
the acquisition of farmland, it also hampered trade with the Indians, thus causing the United States to declare
war on Great Britain in 1812, and a year later, on the hostile faction of Creek Indians.10
During the summer of 1813 the Red Sticks began to prepare for war. An Indian by the name of Peter McQueen
led a party of approximately 300 Red Stick Creeks and a large number of pack horses to the Spanish port of
Pensacola to procure gunpowder and lead shot, that was, according to American spies, sent there by the British.
Inhabitants of Pensacola who aligned themselves with the United States quickly reported McQueen’s acquisition
of munitions to the Americans. The Americans felt as if they needed to intercept the Red Sticks newly acquired
munitions quickly, to prevent a large-scale war with the Creeks. As soon as Colonel James Caller of the
Mississippi Territory was made aware of the potential threat, he immediately mobilized his militia in hopes of
attacking the Indians as they returned from Pensacola. His militia was comprised of 180 white men and Indians
who lacked military discipline, but who were well armed.11
On the morning of July 27, 1813, Caller’s scouts informed the colonel that some warriors from McQueen’s party
were camped in a thicket of pines along the bank of Burnt Corn Creek. The Indians spotted by the scouts
numbered no more than twelve, but these few had the majority of the pack horses with them. Informed of the
Creeks' position, Caller ordered his troops to charge. The Indians held their ground for a short while, but soon
retreated across the creek into a nearby swamp where they became well camouflaged by the vegetation and were
able to resume firing on the white troops. After hearing the report of the rifles, members of McQueen’s party
who were camped nearby, rushed into the swamp and assisted in firing on the militia. At that point there were
approximately 60 to 100 Indians hidden in the swamp attempting to repel their enemy. 12
The troops, feeling they had the Indians beaten, laid their firearms down and began dividing the captured goods.
By doing this, the militia let their guard down and created an opportunity for the Indians to mount a counter
attack. While hidden in the swamp, the warriors painted themselves for battle and then bolted out of the stagnant
water to make a ferocious attack on Caller’s troops. Halbert and Ball explained, that the Creeks, having “…guns,
tomahawks and war clubs, rushed forth from the swamp, and with fieriest cries of vengeance charged upon their
foes and drove them headlong before them.” The troops were so surprised they quickly retreated from the
Indians’ camp. Caller’s officers regained control of what troops could still be found, and they held the warriors
at bay for about two hours, creating an opportunity for a safe retreat.13
The events at Burnt Corn Creek compounded the already existing tensions of war, and as a result white settlers
became increasingly fearful of being invaded by a Red Stick war party. The settlers began constructing forts to
serve as places of refuge in case of an attack. The most notable of these was the fortified home of ferryman
Samuel Mims. Fort Mims was commanded by Major Daniel Beasley and located 35 miles north of Mobile on
the east side of the Alabama River. The fort had approximately 550 people occupying its grounds and its
protective structure amounted to picket walls with only two gates.14
Creek Indians, disturbed by the fighting at Burnt Corn Creek, planned to retaliate by attacking Fort Mims.
William Weatherford, an influential mixed blood belonging to the Upper Creek Nation, whose father was a
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 25
white trader and mother was the daughter of one of the chiefs from the Indian town of Tabacha, urged the
warriors not to avenge what happened at Burnt Corn Creek.15
Weatherford’s efforts to calm the warriors were to no avail, so he took it upon himself to lead the strike against
Fort Mims, and according to Woodward’s Reminiscences of the Creeks, along the way he attempted to delay the
war party as long as possible, hoping to give the inhabitants of the old ferry place time to prepare. James A.
Shackford notes in David Crockett: the man and the Legend, that Weatherford only intended for a symbolic
skirmish to occur outside the fort’s walls, and that he would call the attack off once his party realized the fort’s
walls were impenetrable. When it was discovered the gates were open, the enraged Creeks charged the
dwellings of the fort and began to attack. Weatherford removed himself from the event once he realized he could
do nothing to quell the vengeful Creeks’ actions.16
This attack, known as the Fort Mims Massacre, resulted in the slaughter of approximately 300 men, women, and
children. The settlers inside the fort, unaware of the mounting danger, played card games while their children
frolicked around the camp. The attacking warriors, fueled by their anger over what happened at Burnt Corn,
were able to enter the fort without much opposition. The eastern gate of the Fort had remained open for such a
long period of time, drifting sand had collected thick at its base and restricted the gate from closing. While Major
Beasley struggled to close the gate, he was suddenly struck down with a tomahawk. The Red Sticks stormed the
encampment and proceeded to torch the fort’s central building. The fire soon engulfed the entire stockade while
the warriors killed the fort’s inhabitants, taking 250 scalps as trophies.17
A young man who accompanied David Crockett to Pensacola during the later half of the war explained how,
according to Crockett, he saw his family “…butchered in the most shocking manner…” and that he escaped the
ensuing slaughter “… by running over the heads of the crowd, who were against the fort wall, to the top of the
fort, and then jumping off, and taking to the woods.” The Creek warriors chased the young man to a small
bayou where he then hid in a hollow log. The frightened man laid there silently listening to the Indians’ footsteps
as they searched for him. Eventually the young man was able to slip away undetected. 18
The horror of the Mims Massacre spread quickly. By October, The United States’ Gazette illustrated a message
of revenge; “Such outrage cannot must not be passed over unpunished. Our fellow citizens have been butchered;
our indignation is roused; and ample vengeance, alone, can appease us!”19
(Editor – Mr. Burn's Narrative will be continued in the Journal's next issue.)
A QUESTION FOR THE PURISTS:
Are wars discussed in two of the articles in this issue of the Journal really an appropriate subjects for the
Journal of the War of 1812? THE WAR OF 1812!
Before you answer, consider this:
Was the deployment of U.S. troops into Russia in 1918-1920 an appropriate subject for those studying
World War I?
Was the use of U.S. troops during domestic rioting in the United states in 1968 an appropriate subject for
those studying the Vietnam War?
What is the essence of the Theory of War?
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 26
1 Harvey H. Jackson, III, Rivers of History: Life on the Coosa, Tallapoosa, Cahaba and Alabama (Tuscaloosa: The
University of Alabama Press, 1995: 31; George H. Taylor, ed., The War of 1812: Past Justifications and Present
Interpretations (Boston: D.C. Heath & Company, 1963), 28-33.
2 Albert J. Pickett, History of Alabama, and Incidentally of Georgia and Mississippi from the Earliest Period (Charleston,
SC: Walker and James, 1851; reprint, Montgomery, AL: River City Publishing, 1962), 510; H.S. Halbert and T. H. Ball,
The Creek Indian War of 1813 and 1814 (Donohue and Heneberry, 1895; reprint, edited by Frank L. Owsley, Jr.,
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1995), 38-39, 88; Frank L. Owsley, Jr., Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands:
The Battle of New Orleans, 1812-1815 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000), 9.
3 Charles Hudson, The Southern Indians (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1976), 448; Jackson, 28, 29.
4 Jackson, 28, 32; George Stiggins, Creek Indian History: A Historical Narrative of the Genealogy, Traditions and
Downfalls of the I Spocoga or Creek Indians Tribe, ed. William Stokes Wyman (Birmingham, AL: Public Library Press,
1989), 80-82; J. Leitch Wright, Jr., Creeks and Seminoles: The Destruction and Regeneration of the Muscogulge People
(University of Nebraska Press, 1986), 142-49; Claudio Saunt, A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the
Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816 (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 139.
5 Jackson, 26-28.
6 Jackson, 28; E. Grace Jemison, Historic Tales of Talladega (Montgomery: Paragon Press, 1959), 23; Benjamin
Hawkins, The Collected Works of Benjamin Hawkins, 1796-1810, ed. Thomas Foster II (Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press, 1977), 29-30; Saunt, 157.
7 Wright, 144-46.
8 Hudson, 448-49; Jackson, 33; Wright, 153, 166; Kathryn E. Holland, Deerskins and Duffels: Creek Indian Trade with
Anglo-America, 1685-1815 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993), 186-87.
9 Hudson, 448-49; Jackson, 32-33; Wright, 163-67.
10 Jackson, 32-33.
11 Owsley, Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands, 30; Halbert and Ball, 125; Stiggins, 100.
12 Owsley, Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands, 30-31; Pickett, 523; Halbert and Ball, 134-35.
13 Owsley, Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands, 31; Pickett, 524; Stiggins, 100.
14 Jackson, 33, 35; Henry Adams, The War of 1812, ed. Major H. A. Deweerd (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891;
reprint, Washington: The Infantry Journal, 1944), 116.
15 James A. Shackford, David Crockett, The Man and the Legend, ed. John B. Shackford (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1956), 19; Jackson, 35.
16 Shackford, 19; Thomas Woodward, Woodward's Reminiscences of the Creeks, or Muscogee Indians, Contained in
Letters to Friends in Georgia and Alabama (Montgomery: Alabama: Barrett and Wimbish, Book and General Job
Printers, 1859, reprint, Mobile, Alabama: Southern University Press for Graphics, Inc., 1965), 85.
17 Jackson, 35; Picket, 532; Adams, 116; Stiggins, 111-13.
18 David Crockett, A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett of the State of Tennessee (Philadelphia: E. L. Carey and A.
Hurst, 1934; reprint, introduction by James Shackford and Stanley J. Folmsbee, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee
Press, 1973), 105-6.
19 United States Gazette, October 27, 1813, 698.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 27
War of 1812 Events Calendar
EVENT SPONSORS:
The Journal of the War of 1812 will list your
event free of charge. For a listing contact the
Editor at: [email protected]
May 17-18:
So You Want to be a Soldier? Fort Meigs,
Perrysburg, Ohio. For more information contact
Fort Meigs State Memorial, PO Box 3, 29100 W.
River Road, Perrysburg, Ohio 43522,
www.fortmeigs.org. 800-283-8916.
May 24-26:
First Siege 1813 & Memorial Day
Commemoration, Fort Meigs, Perrysburg, Ohio.
See contact information above.
June 21-22:
6th Annual War of 1812 Weekend, Genesse
County Village & Museum, Mumford, NY.
Contact the Museum, 1410 Flint Hill Road,
Mumford, NY 14511; 581-538-6822.
June 21-22:
War of 1812 Encampment, Shandy Hall, Geneva,
Ohio. Contact Scott Longert, [email protected].
216-721-5722 x330.
July 4-6:
1813 Independence Celebration, Fort Meigs,
Perrysburg, Ohio.
See contact information
above.
July 12-13:
Three Rivers Festival – War of 1812
Encampment, Historic Old Fort Wayne, Fort
Wayne, Indiana. For more information visit
www.oldfortwayne.org. 260-460-4763.
July 18-20:
Historic Battle of Prairie du Chein, Prairie du
Chein, Wisconsin. For more information: John
Fenner, [email protected] (920-499-1215)
or Michael Douglas, [email protected].
July 25-27:
Drums Along the Maumee,
Fort Meigs,
Perrysburg, Ohio.
See contact information
above.
July 26-27:
The Battle of Fort William, Thunder Bay,
Ontario, Canada. Includes a War of 1812 event.
For information contact Krista Power, Events
Coordinator, Fort William Historical Park, 1350
King Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7K
1L7, [email protected]. 807-473-2357.
August 9-10:
Siege of Fort Erie. Re-enactment of one of the
War's bloodiest battles. Old Fort Erie, Ontario
Canada.
Contact
www.oldforterie.com.
905-871-0540.
September 6:
A Day of Remembrance: 100th Anniversary of
the Fort Meigs Monument, Fort Meigs,
Perrysburg, Ohio. See contact information above.
September 12-14:
Defender's Day and Star Spangled Banner
Weekend, Fort McHenry, Maryland. For more
information contact Fort McHenry National
Monument and Historic Shrine, 2400 East Fort
Avenue,
Baltimore,
Maryland
21230;
410-962-4290.
September 20-21:
War of 1812 North American Grand Tactical,
Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St.
Leonard, Maryland. Contact: Jefferson Patterson
Park and Museum, 10515 Mackall Road, St.
Leonard, Maryland 20685. www.jefpat.org.
410-586-8557.
October 17-18 & 24-25:
Garrison Ghost Walk, Fort Meigs, Perrysburg,
Ohio. See contact information above.
November 1-2:
Muster on the Wabash, Vincennes, Indiana. For
More Information contact David Weaver, PO
Box
81,
Vincennes,
IN
47591.
[email protected]. 812-882-7422.
Journal of the War of 1812, Volume 11, No.1, Page 28
Journal of the War of 1812
An International Journal Dedicated to the last Anglo-American War, 1812-1815
The Star-Spangled Banner Flag House
844 E. Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD 21202, USA
Address Service Requested
NON-PROFIT ORG
U.S. POSTAGE
P A I D
PERMIT NO. 3272
BALTIMORE, MD