User talk:Ericderrotten49

I will let some bot post the standard greeting messages. However, I must take issue with some of your recent contributions to the Engagements on Lake Huron. In changing the result from "British victory" to "Indecisive", you *must* provide reliable sources to back your claim. Indeed, one of the sources you quoted (Elting, p.280) unequivocally states "[The gunboats'] capture gave the British control of Upper Lake Huron and a secure line of communications for such supplies as were available for the western posts." Since the Americans were trying to achieve the starvation of Mackinac, this was clearly an American defeat. Arguing over a balance sheet of vessels lost and captured is irrelevant.

Your contention that Indians were drifting away as a result of the Americans holding Fort Malden is a misreading of Elting, pp.280, 312-313 and 323, and constitutes original research through synthesis. The American retention of Malden was of significance only in forcing recalcitrant British officers to comply with the terms of the peace treaty and abandon Mackinac. HLGallon (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. If you had used the qualifier "Upper" Lake Huron, your statement of British victory would be substantiated by Elting. And, also, because the captured U.S. boats were actually of more subtantial size than the puny "gunboat" description they are usually given.


 * 2. The source (Elting) DOES support Indians quitting the fight all over the northern region. The stated reason was due to a realization of the futility of their position. It had nothing to do with Fort Malden, other than its effects as a barrier between their suppliers and their homelands. He doesn't include, nor exclude, any places individually.


 * 3. 100 barrels of salvaged provisions (the other 200 having been destroyed), was hardly sufficient to feed the 600 fighters at Mackinac for six months, never mind the whole northwest. It was far less than they were expecting, and they were already suffering shortages. "The British at Mackinac were very short of provisions and would starve if they were not resupplied before Lake Huron froze at the start of winter." They were hungry already, then they got 1/3 the supplies they were counting on, followed by the winter (who really controls a frozen lake anyway?). Ericderrotten49 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the article further on. "The captured Scorpion and Tigress were renamed Confiance and Surprise. They sailed at once for the Nottawasaga and returned at the start of October with six months' provisions. This was sufficient to keep the garrison of Mackinac and their Indian allies supplied until the end of the war." I'll add a cite. Cruikshank's documentary collection p.193 indicates that on learning of the loss of the Nancy, the British had hastened to send more supplies and batteaux to the Nottawasaga. Please remember to sign your posts on talk threads with four tildes (~) . This automatically adds your signature and a date/time stamp to your post. HLGallon (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

- No doubt the British intended to make up the lost supplies, but hastening and delivering are two different things. There was the approach of winter, the well established transportation problems, and the destruction of the mills in southern Ontario (Elting page 281). One wonders how (and where from) such a shortfall was expected to be made good. Particularly late in the year.

- On page 280, Elting goes on to say with reference to the captured vessels, "their capture gave the British control of upperItalic text Lake Huron and a secure line of communications for such supplies as were availableItalic text for the western posts." He goes into more detail about that with, "The British at Prairie du Chien, now commanded by Captain Andrew Bulger, spent an uncomfortable, hungry winter amid crowds of discontented Indians who resented the meagerness of the Indian Department's distributions. The Michigan Fencibles and Mississippi volunteers turned semi-mutinous;" Ericderrotten49 (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I must take issue with some of your recent contributions now. You've excluded significant information, on the basis of unrelated technicalities and presumptions, without actually refuting it. It was also done without deposing the source. That seems inconsistent with the concept of this resource. Ericderrotten49 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)