Talk:Battle of Chippawa

I do not agree with this opening statement:

"The Battle of Chippawa (sometimes spelled Chippewa) was a decisive victory for American militia units which allowed for the invasion of Canada along the Niagara River."

There were more regular US Army troops then militia troops at this battle. The British at first though they were militia because of their grey uniforms which militia sometimes wore. In fact there was just a blue cloth shortage for the Regular army.

Upper Canada not lower Ontario

I made some corrections. I took out "lower Ontario" and replaced it with Upper Canada. The Battle was fought in Upper Canada.

Equal forces?

Americans had 3,500 versus the Brits with 2,000.

Who said that is an equal amount? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.173.14 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

References

Confession time - it was me who put the 'citations' template at the head of the article some time ago, fully intending to do some work in that area myself - however, I'd like to pay tribute to some fine work done by others, who have beaten me to it. I'd propose to take off the citations template now but will wait for a period in case anyone thinks it should remain on a bit longer.Scoop100 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Aftermath" Section Referencing

I'm primarily interested in seeking citations to support the second and third paragraphs of this section. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the "Aftermath" section appears to me to be an unreferenced personal analysis, if it remains in its current state, I am prepared to remove it in its entirety in the near future. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Working on Citations and references

May God Bless You Always!

I am trying to work on this article's need for citations and reference. My goal is to improve this article and then move on to the Battle of Lundy's Lane. I have jsut finished Donald Graves' book The Battle of Lundy's Lane on the Niagara in 1814. This book gives a good coverage of the events and battle surrounding Lundy's Lane and then goes into depth for the Battle of Lundy's Lane. This is a good book.

Anyway, I am looking for the source of this statement: ''Although Brigadier General Edmund P. Gaines tried to persuade Brown to make the attack on Kingston, it proved impossible for Brown to gain any cooperation from Commodore Isaac Chauncey (commanding the American naval squadron based at Sackett's Harbor, New York) which was essential for any such attack.''

In the book I read mentions Edmund Gaines in three places.

• Page 15 the book says that General Gaines was commanding at Sackets Harbor. The author mentions a letter sent from Gaines to General Browns on April 14, 1814, where Gaines says that Sacketts Harbor was under imminent danger of attack.

• Page 85 the author mentions a letter General Gaines dated July 20, 1814 stating that Commodore Chauncey was sick and refused to let his fleet sail under a subordinate. It also mentions a failed attempt by Gaiones to send some 18-pounders to General Brown.

• Pages 192, 195-196 these pages talk about General Gaines commanding the American forces at Fort Erie during the August 15, 1814 engagement.

None of these pages mention Gaines trying to influence Brown to attack Kingston. I am not denying that this might be true, but a source is needed. Can someone tell me were they got this information? (Steve (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Elting, John R. (1995). Amateurs to Arms: a Military History of the War of 1812. New York: Da Capo Press. pp. 178–179. ISBN 0306806533. The relevant passages read

Armstrong still hoped for an offensive against Kingston, combined with a feint at Niagara to split Drummond's forces... Armstrong drew up two sets of orders. One, the contents of which he "leaked" discreetly, directed Brown to capture Fort Niagara and Fort George. The other, carefully kept secret, ordered the capture of Kingston... Brown concluded that he had been given two equally acceptable alternate plans, and that he was to select the one more suited to his forces and the existing situation... En route, Edmund P. Gaines looked over Brown's orders, immediately understood Armstrong's intentions, and explained them convincingly to Brown. Letting his command go on to Buffalo, Brown made a fast ride back to Sackets Harbor, but found Chauncey absolutely obdurate.

The emphasis is mine. Hope this helps. HLGallon (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

May God Bless You Always!

That helps a lot HLGallon. I will add that citation now. Thank you for all your help. Stay tuned though, I may come back later with another "What is the Source" question. My goal, with help, is to make this an "A-Level" or even "FA-Level" Article.

Your Friend in Christ, (Steve (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

American bias

This article seems to suffer from an American bias judging from the amount of text given to each side. Rmhermen (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609194946/http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=12972&pid=0 to http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=12972&pid=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Colony of Upper Canada versus Upper Canada

I think this is important to include. The Americans were not invading Canada since it didn't yet exist. They were invading a British Colony called Upper Canada at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemcfarland (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Those are regulars, by God!

Elting mentions the statement but provides no source. The parenthetical note says Scott is the only source (although that piece of information itself is unsourced). It seems unlikely, to me, that Scott could have heard anything Riall said since the Americans were advancing through artillery fire, but my opinion doesn’t count.

Nevertheless, the American commander can’t be considered a reliable source for a complimentary statement about his troops. It isn’t mentioned in the article Winfield Scott. Therefore I have been bold and deleted this nugget of apocrypha. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

See Scott's memoirs https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_ACsOAAAAIAAJ/page/n158/mode/1up Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Crossing the river

The article says "Brown's army...easily surrounded and captured Fort Erie." Missing, is any information about how they got there. Since it is said that attacking via the lakes wasn't feasible, there ought to be a phrase saying whether they forded the river, came across in small boats, or perhaps used balloons. Remember, this is the Niagara River, not some creek. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)