Talk:Siege of Detroit

Date
The box says the battle took place on July 11, but the article says August 15. Which is right? 172.200.83.19 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The August date was correct. Thank you for pointing out the problem! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This battle is more commonly known as The Battle of Fort Detroit. Historically, the Siege of Detroit usually refers to Pontiac's rebellion. I just wanted to point it out. As an expert on this particular battle, the headline (among a few other issues) is the most irritating —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qyd (talk • contribs)
 * I agree you look up this battle and it's unkown so you really have to dig it up.Callum1st2 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Background
There appears to be an error with a date (NOTE: this wording was changed): "On June 26, he (Gen Hull) received a letter from Eustis, warning him that war was imminent."

The letter Sec Eustis sent was dated June 18, 1812 & received June 26, 1812 (you say), and not one word was said anything respecting a declaration of war.

The Sec of War did sent a letter w/ info on the declaration by regular post and it arrived on July 2, 1812. That is the Sec of War Eustis failed to inform Gen Hull that there was a war until two weeks after the declaration. Both letters were sent on the same day; one w/ the declaration was sent very slowly.

It's precisely that Sec Eustis, Gen Dearborn & others did not notify Gen Hull of this crucial detail - that there was a declared war - that he sent the ship on the lake, and the men and documents were captured. The British commanders were informed, but not the American General. This is an attempt to blame Gen Hull for his commanders failures.Ebanony (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the sentence to which you object is cited fact. Please use a dictionary before committing edits. "War was imminent" means the outbreak could be expected any day or even any hour. It did not mean that it had been declared. Eustis wrote while waiting for Congress to vote on the declaration, and Congress might have taken some time in speeches before passing it. In the meantime he urged Hull to "pursue your march to Detroit with all possible expedition". In the event, Congress passed the declaration of war the same afternoon. No comment was made in the article as it stood ascribing blame to Hull; that interpretation was entirely yours, and incorrect. HLGallon (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The way the article is written implies that Gen Hull was negligent in his duties in sending the ship, which was later captured with all his papers and informed Brock of US plans to conquer Canada. Why? Because the implication is that he should have not have sent the ship on July 1st after reading the "war is imminent" message you say he received on June 26. There are some problems with that, & that's not my interpretation. That's basically what it says. I'll explain.


 * Now what is fact is that Secretary Eustis sent 2 letters to him on the 18th of June (day the war was declared). The letter with orders "to march to Detroit, with all possible expedition" was sent express and received on June 24th, not June 26th. The one with on the declaration of war arrived July 2. General Hull was not aware of the declaration of war until July 2, two weeks after war had been declared, and one day after he sent the ship.  That is the error I pointed out. You don't think that's relevant or factual? If so that's your interpretation.


 * In this actual letter of June 18th received on June 24th, Gen Hull says "I received a letter ...directing me to march to Detroit, with all possible expedition". Gen Hull then shipped the sick & unnecessary supplies by boat in order to obey because that stuff weighed down the horses. Gen Hull himself says that in this letter "not one word was said respecting a declaration of war". And he's correct, for "war is imminent" was not in any way an order or an indication that using the boat would be improper because it didn't inform him of the war. It could mean war today, tomorrow or the next day or whenever. But it did not mean "get ready to attack" or "invade Canada", and it's not even remotely possible it that could have meant anything of the sort. The "war is imminent" quote is 1) irrelevant and 2) out of context. Gen Hull was part of a defensive force, not an offensive one. The attack on Canada would only occur 1) with a declaration of war and 2) reinforcements of thousands of soldiers, not militia (of which his men were chiefly) and the US took control of the lake. Gen Hull was never intended to do that according to the official war plans by Gen Dearborn. Read for yourself on pg 34: Do you still insist these things? If so, state what & based on what. Those weren't spelling errors, which are simple to fix. These things put the Battle of Detroit into context, something the article needs to do, and you've prevented me from doing 2 times without just cause. Ebanony (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Eustis's first letter was received 26 June according to Elting, but this may be a misprint or mistake. I will take a swing at the relevant section of the article, and you may edit or comment as you wish, but please note that Wikipedia tends to place less reliance on primary sources than others (see undue weight in sections. Please also be cautious before decrying reliably sourced statements as "categorically false"; it can enrage pernickety editors (such as myself). If I have ruffled your feathers, I apologise. HLGallon (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Points noted, but Hull's writing is not exactly an innacurate account of the details. Whilst it may confuse some, the court martial is the primary source, and it is from there as well as the original letters at the War Dept that the date of Sec Eustis letter comes from. Elting should know what I've discussed here, and the importance of those dates if he's a historian worthy of the title. Gen Hull meerly reprints or cites the originals, which historians would have trouble discounting if they tried. I'd like to know what historians would challenge that source (some attack Hull's reputation, but don't touch the evidence). On the other hand, I shouldn't have used that term, and I apologise for doing so. I can remove it if you want. We need sticklers here. Too much pro-Canadain or pro-US versions and not enough neutral material.


 * The issue is that Gen Hull has been unfairly treated by some historians, some of whom criticise him for not taking Malden, and the failure of Detroit. These claims are without basis, and some historians say so. British Generals in the War of 1812 unduly assigns blame to Hull, and whilst wpedia does prefer them, not all are good. Historians (an interesting term in itself), do not always agree, and many have an axe to grind, particularly with the Candada/US issues in War of 1812. It's really not that complicated that after 200 years it's a mystery. Perhaps we can improve this article. What suggestions do you have on other parts that need work? I'd rather work with you on it.Ebanony (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the date that General Hull received the first letter from Secretary Eustis dated June 18, 1812. The evidence points to June 26 and not to June 24. General Hull in his memoirs is inconsistent in recalling the date. As has been pointed out on page 36 of his memoirs he states that it was on June 24, but if you look at page 9 he states that it was on June 26. It is necessary to look at other sources to find the correct date.

Alec R. Gilpin wrote The War of 1812 in the Old Northwest and was a recognized authority on the history of the war in this area. On pages 50 and 51 he wrote: "The main force arrived on June 25. The next day Hull received a message from Eustis, dated June 18, urging him to hurry to Detroit. There was no hint that war had been declared or even that it was being contemplated." Gilpin's authority on this subject is further enhanced by the fact that his Ph.D. thesis was General William Hull and The War on the Detroit in 1812.

The most convincing evidence that Hull received the letter on June 26 comes from his reply to Secretary Eustis written on the same day he received the letter. A copy of this letter with the date it was written at the top can be found in the Michigan historical collections (vol. 40) at the University of Michigan located here. As you can see General Hull acknowledged receiving the letter on June 26.

On a related point it is necessary to be careful when using John R. Elting's book Amateurs, To Arms!: A Military History of the War of 1812. Ellting was 80 years old when this book was published and perhaps too old to have written it. As the US historian Donald R. Hickey has stated: "His book is thus filled with errors and should be used with caution." You can find Hickey's comment near the bottom of the page located here. Dwalrus (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the recent contributions. I see the error that Gen Hull made, as it is on pg 9 and 36. I should have looked closer at his book, though (And HLGallon, my aplogy; I was wrong on the date & this is why). The link to Hull's letter to Eustis is an excellent source as it has Eustis letters too so thanks for sharing. I was searching for the originals, but only knew about LOC versions which are not transcribed, and I was going through Eustis writings 1 by 1 (not an easy thing to do) to try to find the letters you posted on the Michigan link. I did check, but was looking in the wrong area.

One of the problems's with Hull's writing is that he does not include all the letters in his writings, though he quotes from some of them, we can't rely on him alone, I agree (hence the LOC search above). However, it's generally difficult to find much scholarly work published on these events about Hull. Lots of work was done as either a master's or Phd thesis; they are not all available to read as easily as they should be. Are you aware of online versions of additional writings that could assist in the area of Hull with the invasion of Canada, the defence of Detroit or the subsequent court martial? Suggestions of the type you've mentioned are desired so that we can deal with original sources/respected historians. I've done my own checking, but some people like you obviously know more and if you could share more, we could improve the articles accordingly.

Thanks for your help on this so far Dwalrus. Great work Ebanony (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ebanony, if you are looking for Masters and Ph.D. dissertations you will have a good chance of finding them at the Proquest website. They are not free and cost either $37 or $42 for a pdf download depending on whether you are a student. You said that "Lots of work was done as either a master's or Phd thesis" and I am curious as to what specific works you are referring to. Dwalrus (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the site, I've just checked it out. As to some of the work on Hull (overall not a lot on him, but some of what they cite are theses) see 1) Bender, Mark. The Failure of General William Hull at Detroit in 1812 and its Immediate Effects Upon the State of Ohio Kent State, 1971 I think; 2) Rauch, Steven. ''The Eyes of the Country Were Upon Them. A Comparitive Study of the Campaign of the Northwestern Army Conducted by William Hull and Henry Harrison'' but from Michigan Uni, I think 1991/1992. Those are master's theses. On Hull there are also some Phd work: 3) Greer, David. Revolutionary Federalist Republican: The Early Life and Reputation of William Hull, Texas Christian Uni 2007. This one is worth considering: Clarke, James Freeman. William Hull and the Surrender of Detroit, by George Ellis, though this was in a book. So yes, not much work on him in general, but there are a few things that come up, Gilpin's is always the first, but there are a few others; these ones you might be already be familiar with. Then there's Latimer who says he got a bum rap & was a scapegoat & abondoned by Cass & others at Detroit, though he made an error w/ powder supplies; he quotes Gilpin as referring to him as scapegoat pgs 65-70. Ebanony (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender's Master's thesis is not available on Proquest, but the works from Steven Rausch and David Greer are there if you are interested. William Hull and the Surrender of Detroit by James Freeman Clark is an old work that is available here. I assume that you have done some research on archive.org since you seem interested in viewing older works and doing original research. I did a search on the archive site for William Hull. Dwalrus (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked out all of the sources above; they are all important for this topic, and thanks for the suggestions, especially on the theses. That proquest is an excellent tool, and it's well worth the fees to get the thesis sought; archive is one of the best tools on the internet for old books. But I've no preference to old vs new, just to work that is well grounded and free of baseless opinion, and sadly many 19th century writings simply state opinions without any regard for how their conclusions were reached. That's why the theses are so valuable, and the original sources as well. What's been especially difficult is the various numbers at Detroit itself on the day of the surrender. The number of Brock's men and NA allies change depending on the writer, and both sides have ideological motives for it: Canadians paint Brock as a hero, the NA Tecumseh as a hero & the US Hull as a failure, hence the apparant cause, among others. Maybe the theses will help sort it out.Ebanony (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Decisive or not?
I've noticed the back-and-forthing on whether this was a decisive battle or not and there's no better place to hash-out the general sentiment of such changes than here. So rather than accusations of edit warring being bandied about, why not state here arguments for or against it being decisive and (hopefully) let this be the end of it. I'll begin as being in the decisive camp because along with Michilimackinac, a numerically superior foe was defeated and US plans that had previously viewed the War as a "mere matter of marching" were completely upended and significant territory capture and/or made safe for British/Canadian interests. Natty10000 | Natter 15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The template documentation suggests that this parameter should be decided based on sources rather than our interpretation of who won and by how much, and that without supporting sources it should be omitted. Do the sources call it a decisive victory, a victory, or none of the above? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Two recent edits have been made without prior discussion on this talk page or attempt to gain concensus for them. One, changing UK english spellings to American english is not particularly disruptive, although it appears to me that an unofficial convention exists that for the War of 1812, articles on battles which resulted in British and/or Canadian victories use UK english (or Canadian english; the differences appear to be trifling) spellings, articles on battles which resulted in American victories use US english.

The major issue appears to me to be the change throughout of "Native American" to "Indian". The edit summary read:

unscrambling this tangled mess; people who live in Canada CANNOT be referred to as "native Americans", regardless of what the Language Police say about politically correct terminology)

First, there is the minor point that the majority, if not all, of Tecumseh's followers and other allies were from United States territory (even if living in Canada following the Battle of Tippecanoe). The major point is who says "people who live in Canada CANNOT be referred to as "native Americans""? Is there a Canadian law which bans the use of the term? or legal precedent in the Canadian courts? Alternately, is there a fixed or generally applied Wikipedia policy?

I am no supporter of political correctness, but it does seem illogical that where there is any confusion over an agreed terminology, the default naming convention should be the most insensitive that could possibly be chosen. HLGallon (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There are many levels on which the term "native American" was being used incorrectly throughout the article. First, a native American is any person born on American soil. The British were not native Americans; people born in Canada are not native Americans; but those who were fighting under Hull's command were native Americans. Second, it is customary to use contemporaneous terminology as much as possible when writing about a historical event. For example, articles about the American Revolutionary War speak of "Patriots" vs. "Loyalists" because those were the terms used at the time, despite any other connotations which those words may have acquired to our modern ears. Next, the term "Native American" is the politically correct phrase in America at the present moment, but not in Canada. So the phrase in this article does not even work at forcing modern political correctness onto the past. Canadian "Indians" are generally referred to as "First Nations" or "indigenous people groups". I do not know what terms were used in 1812, though I suspect that they were also simply called "Indians."
 * We all understand that the indigenous tribes in North America were not from India and that "Indians" is a misnomer, but it was a universal reference to the collective tribes of North America for several hundred years, and it is the best term in this article for the simple matter of maintaining clarity. —Dilidor (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that native Americans are still being called Indians in this article. Aren't you going to change it?-Karumari (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Source for "British Moves" section
In the final paragraph under "British moves", the second sentence about General Brock making "several bluffs to deceive the Americans" has no citation. I cannot find this information in any of the sources I've found or in the surrounding citations. Does anyone know where this information came from? Thompso07 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)