Talk:Battle of York

Untitled
Where is the proof of this statement:

"The many acts of arson and looting committed by American troops at York were to become the pretext for the later Burning of Washington by the British."?


 * Hmmm. Perhaps a better wording would be "excuse" rather than "pretext". Sir George Prevost definitely did request Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, then commanding the RN ships on the American station, to retaliate for the destruction of property in an American raid on Long Point. (Hitsman, Graves, The Incredible War of 1812, p240). This event occurred early in 1814, shortly before Cochrane landed Ross's army, which did the burning. There were any number of British and Canadians who in effect said, "Serve you right" after the Burning of Washington; Revd. John Strachan for one. HLGallon 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it was an excuse or a pretext. The attack on Washington was a direct result of York and the British did not try to disguise it or make any excuses for it.  It should be noted that Rear Admiral Cockburn was utterly unapologetic about it and refused the entreaties of his subordinates to spare some of the more impressive public buildings in Washington as that would have defeated the object.


 * What is seldom mentioned by Americans is that Cockburn was at great pains to only torch public buildings and his troops were under the strictest orders to protect private properties and leave civilians unmolested. This is in stark contrast to the behaviour of the Americans at York. It is amply demonstrated by the fact that when he was about to set fire to a newspaper office (because it had been,as he saw it, maligning him) he relented when a delegation of local women told him that their houses might very well become caught up in the fire.  He therefore ordered his men to dismantle the building manually brick by brick and destroy the machinery.  Hardly the act of a marauding thug.  PrivateWiddle 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Burning of the warships at York

I don't think it was certain that it was the Americans who burned all the warships. British Gen. Sheaffe had ordered the destruction of the Sir Isaac Brock and naval stores as his forces retreated to Kingston - the Americans had not landed forces east of the fort to impede their retreat. (City of Toronto Planning and Development Department, Fort York: Heritage Conservation Study (1984)'', p6) The US Secretary of War John Armstrong criticized Dearborn for failing to seize the Brock before the retreating British had torched it, and for allowing the fort garrison to escape. SCrews 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there seems to be confusion about whether the HMS Duke of Gloucester was captured or sailed away from York prior to the battle. The galafilm.com site for their War of 1812 project says that it sailed away, yet the ship's article here says the Americans captured it. This should be verified. SCrews 03:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just rechecked as many accounts of the battle as I can lay my hands on. The most reliable authorities (Roosevelt, C.P. Stacey, etc) agree that HMS Duke of Gloucester (1813) was captured at York, and either towed or sailed to Sacket's Harbor. Although it was nominally armed with 10 guns, it was very old and in poor condition, and the Americans thought it was a pretty poor prize. The ship *was* set on fire and burned by the Americans themselves when they thought the British were about to capture their Navy Yard during the Battle of Sackett's Harbor. In this instance, galafilm has got it wrong, or not clarified matters.


 * It was indeed the British who fired HMS Isaac Brock at York, as the article makes clear. I may delete the reference to the Prince Regent. The ship of this name which joined the British squadron in 1814 was a 40-gun frigate, several times the size of the Brock. There is no reference to it having been constructed at York. I suspect that the only source in which I found any reference to the Prince Regent having been at York (an article by Charles W. Humphries in Zaslow, The Defended Border) either got the year wrong, or perhaps mistook a small schooner of the same name for the frigate. HLGallon 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:"The many acts of arson and looting committed by American troops at York were to become the pretext for the later Burning of Washington by the British."?

John R. Elting states that planning for the raid on Washington had begun in Mar. 1813(a month before the burning of York)Danwild6 (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mace of Parliament
It should be noted in the article that the most interesting loot that the Americans captured was the mace of parliament, symbol the Crown's authority - as York was Upper Canada's capital. It remained at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis until 1934 when President Roosevelt returned it as a friendly gesture during Toronto's centennial. (John Woolley and Gerhard Peters,The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14862. SCrews 13:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory?
I understand how Bunker Hill can be considered a Pyrrhic Victory but the raid on York had significant implications on the future course of the war. The among the munitions seized at York were the cannon destined for the Provincial Marine Lake Erie squadron. The capture of these undoubtedly contributed to the US victory at Put-in-Bay. At the Battle of Put-in-Bay the British had to strip guns from the Fort Amherstburg(Malden)to arm their squadron. Danwild6 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Purpose
The Background section doesn't describe the purpose of the US attack on York. Can someone who knows fill in that information? --Doradus (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully the recent additions cover the American plans and intentions. HLGallon (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

UK spelling?
Interesting choice. I suppose I was expecting to see Canadian here, eh.

Oh well, next best thing. Varlaam (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

casualties per Peppiatt
Is Peppiatt, author of Chapter 31B: Fort York, linked from Robertson's Landmarks of Toronto, simply wrong in stating 200 American troops were killed in the magazine explosion? It disagrees with total casualties currently given in article. I added use of the source but left out the 200 number for now at least. Not yet included in the article: assertion by Peppiatt's account that some number of British, too, were killed in the explosion. The source is used also at the Zebulon Pike article, which is where I found it. -- do ncr  am  17:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That project looks at the sources of John Ross Robertson, some of his information was inaccurate. Carl Benn's book "Historic Fort York 1793-1993" is a great source and says 100 British forces were killed and 250 Americans were killed.

The article starts by describing Upper Canada as a province. It was, in fact, a colony. This is just stupid. Can someone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.0.184.223 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding a Hatnote
Would it be considered controversial if I added a hatnote to this article, linking to Battle of York (867)? I'm not sure what the wording would be, possibly "This article is about the 1812 battle in modern Toronto. For the 867 battle in York, England please see Battle of York (867)." CSJJ104 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatnote should definitely be placed at the top of the article as a redirect. I added a hatnote at the top of this article for now. Feel free to adjust it however. Leventio (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Editorialized content and name
Concerning the name of the battle, no battle updates its name to match its contemporary locale (ie. we do not rename the Battle of Gaugamela to the Tel Gomel just because that is the name of the contemporary locale). That is an anachronism. And for the record, naming conventions on Wikipedia adhere to common name principles (see WP:COMMONNAME). If you are contesting the primary name of the battle, provide the evidence that it is the most commonly referred to name in reliable sources (which as far as I've read, York is the common name used in all US, British, and Canadian sources).

Concerning your edits in the lead, provide a reliable source for the editorializing of the content (ie. vengeful, complete humiliation of the important provincial capital). Also, you've yet to explain why you've removed content on the removal of the burning of the town (also the propaganda coup part you removed... is cited from a "modern academic" from the source provided for the prose... so I dunno what your edit summary comment is going on about), or the resequencing of events.

Also, keep in mind Wikipedia is a collaborative project (this article is a collaboration of several editors), so try to not be so hostile. If you've been reverted, go to the talk page to discuss the issue, per WP:BRD (and don't just drop random comments about users being bots... like that's an insult somehow). Leventio (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, so addressing specific concerns (on top of the name of the battle and the issue with the propaganda coup), lets go over the edits you wish to insert:
 * lost by Canada in complete surrender to the Americans in modern. This is redundant as the subsequent sentences explain this. Also, the use of Canada as if it's a self-standing state is somewhat of an anachronism. But for immediacy sake, I've moved where the result of the battle is mentioned in the lead to the second sentence.
 * provincial capital. Sure this is fine. I've added it as colonial capital, but semantics.
 * untrained, unprepared, and outnumbered force of Canadian regulars, British militia It was Canadian militia and British regulars (including Canadian British auxiliary forces). Keep in mind, that the lead is a summary of the article body. If you have a source of the regulars being untrained, feel free to add it.
 * easily defeated This is editorialization without a source saying they were "easily defeated"
 * post-peace negotiations by vengeful British saboteurs as a result of the complete humiliation of the important provincial capital. addition of vengeful saboteurs doing it due to the "complete humiliation of the important provincial capital" is editorialization if you do not provide a source stating that the British rationale was vengeance.... Also, somewhat of a resequencing of events.
 * The American forces subsequently recuperated munition and supply loses from the town as a result of the sabotage before they withdrew several days later. provide a source that the taking of munitions was in response to the "sabotage".
 * Removal of After the American forces carried out several acts of arson and looting, explain why this was removed?
 * Removal of provide the government with a significant propaganda coup, as well as its taken from this citation p. 49 used in the article body. Explain your contention.
 * Leventio (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)