Читать книгу Four Years on the Great Lakes, 1813-1816 - Don Bamford - Страница 14

INTRODUCTION

The Source of the David Wingfield Journal

David Wingfield claims to have been born at Windsor, in Berkshire County, England. The date is most likely 1792.¹

He entered the navy in 1806, at the age of fourteen, but the official details of his early years there are particularly sparse. His service period with the Royal Navy included his time in the Lake Service in Upper Canada in the midst of the hostilities of the War of 1812, where his role and that of his colleagues was to protect that colony from aggressive attacks by the American neighbours.

Our story about David Wingfield has been developed from a thorough review of his journal of notes, made following his time in Canada, during his early retirement years back in Stroud, in Gloucester, in southwest England. He wrote his memoirs in 1828. His recollections are vivid, and are detailed and complete. He has obviously worked from field notes of some sort, probably kept as a form of diary during his time with the Lake Service.

We would not have been able to tell most of his story in the absence of his journal. David Wingfield would largely have disappeared from accounts of Canadian history if it had not been for the thoughtful consideration of one of his descendants. A certain Miss Wingfield determined that a relic document in her possession, carefully retained and passed along by her antecedents, should be placed in the then Public Archives of Canada collection in Ottawa. She contacted the Canadian Government Trade Commissioner in Bristol, Douglas S. Cole, whose office arranged the transfer of the document. A December 28, 1932, note that accompanied the handwritten journal, reported that Miss Wingfield had delivered the diary that day to Cole, and that “Miss Wingfield is the daughter of the late Commander David Wingfield.”² The original manuscript was stamped as received in Canada, January 19, 1933. Over the years several requests have been made to publish the diary, according to Timothy Dubé, Military Archivist, Library and Archives Canada, but he has never seen a finished work. He, along with Bruce County historian Patrick Folkes indicate that an extract was published in the Dalhousie Review as “David Wingfield and Sacketts Harbour.”³

According to Jocelyn Wingfield, a key family historian: “The Wing-field Family Society has a pencil pedigree of this Stroud & Painswick, Gloucester Branch made up mainly from information gathered about thirty years ago and from that recently derived from Lee Preston, another family genealogist.”⁴ Jocelyn suggests that Miss Wingfield would have been a spinster who had inherited the David Wingfield diary, by 1932 was not expecting to marry, and would be the last Wingfield of her immediate line. He offered two possible theories about how the diary came to Ottawa. The first he has discarded as unlikely, but both versions are presented as a matter of interest:

“I further postulate,” he says, in the first and now discounted instance, “that David Wingfield, RN, likely left his precious diary, not to his eldest son John, Tailor & Draper (1832–75), or to Thomas, Fireman, but to son number three, Henry Eggleton Wingfield, Fleet Engineer, Royal Navy.”⁵ He continues:

It is possible that he may have held Henry’s naval position in higher esteem than the sons in the merchant naval service. Henry was surely dead by 1933 and his son Arthur Eggleton Wingfield, (1887–92) predeceased him. This left several daughters: Gladys (b. ca. 1889, m. 1908, living or lived, admittedly, in London (Wand-sworth), but no longer ‘Miss Wingfield’, and Amelia Bradley Wingfield (b.1895) who lived in Bristol. This leaves Edith Maude Wingfield (b.1892) and Dorothy Seymour Wingfield (b.1894). In 1932, Edith Maude would have been 40 and Dorothy Seymour — both spinsters — would have been 38.⁶

Edith and Dorothy were both born, incidentally, at Portsea, according to Wingfield Family Society records, on Portsmouth Harbour’s edge, a big naval base. If either were still alive in 1932, one would need to know the Christian name, but in those days the senior, elderly spinster of the family would have been called “Miss Wingfield” by all and sundry; no first name would be used.

In 1932, at the time of the donation of the diary, had they survived, David Wingfield’s daughters would have reached the ages of: Sarah, 97; Emma Lawson, 96; Louisa Ann, 91; Ellen Jane, 87; and Christiana (Christina/Christa) Mary, 78.

“There was a Norman Edward Wingfield in the RAF, born in 1899 at Stonehouse or Stroud, but he died in 1918, so possibly he had no descendants. If, however, he is the same line as Edward Wingfield one might be able to proceed further,” suggests Jocelyn.⁷

Without further detail about the elusive Miss Wingfield, her exact status and relationship as a descendant of David remain uncertain.

However, with further research, and consideration of more genealogical evidence, Jocelyn Wingfield has revised his declarations about the arrival of the journal notes in Ottawa. He writes, “In Kelly’s 1902 Directory of Bristol, on page 328, a Miss C.M. and a Miss S.W. Wing-field were listed as mistresses/teachers at the Ladies School at 6 Belgrave Place, Bristol.”⁸

Jocelyn purports that they simply have to be Sarah W. Wingfield (b.1836, d.1903), and her sister Christiana (Christina/Christa) Mary Wingfield (b.1855). In the 1901 Census they were living together in Bristol. In the June quarter of 1902, Christiana Mary was married in Stroud, Gloucester. Since Sarah Wingfield of Bristol died in 1903, the mystery inheritor of the diary and its donor to Canada simply has to be Chris-tiana Wingfield, David’s youngest daughter. He suggests:

Maybe — if it is worked through — one will see that the daughters kept returning to David’s old home where they were raised in Stroud in the 1840s–60s when David was alive. Sarah, and her sister, Ellen Jane W. (d.1885) both died in Winchcombe, to the north of Stroud, where their sister Louisa Ann Shill lived, they presumably lodged with the Shills, or at least died at their house. Such speculation might be able to be confirmed by combing through the census records in some additional detail.⁹

Looking Down One of the Steep Streets of Stroud, sketch by Hugh Thomson, 1919. This would be one area surely frequented by David Wingfield and his family members during their residence there. From Highways and Byways in Gloucestershire, by Edward Hutton. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1932.

When David Wingfield died in 1864, sons John and Thomas had already fled the nest. Living at the old family home in Stroud would be David’s second wife, Penelope, presumably all the daughters, and Henry, born 1850, the future fleet engineer, RN, according to Jocelyn. Strange the diary was not actually left to Henry in view of the naval connection, and, regardless of the ownership route or location of the diary, Jocelyn Wingfield currently concludes, “I presume Henry was dead before 1933.”

One final wrinkle in this mystery is the existence of other family descendants with the first name Christiana or known as Christa. Chris-tiana, David’s granddaughter, daughter of eldest son John, or even one of his second son Thomas’s children might have been our Miss Wingfield. David’s daughter would have been seventy-eight, and John’s Christiana, sixty-seven, in 1932. Perhaps it could have been either. The pencilled note on the actual document, by Trade Commissioner Cole, however, suggests that the donor of the actual document was indeed the daughter of David Wingfield.

Unless additional information is forthcoming about the acquisition of the original artifact, the correct transmission route will never be known with absolute certainty.

Leaving for Canada

In any event, according to his journal, David Wingfield sailed on the Woolwich, out of Plymouth, on March 31, 1813. He arrived at Quebec on the evening of May 5. On board with him were Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo, four Royal Navy captains, eight lieutenants, twenty other warrant officers, and 450 seamen. He returned to England from Canada three years later, on September 30, 1816. We know little about his life after that date. However, his journal provides a vivid documentary of his adventures in that three-year period.

The original hand-written manuscript and our additional notes cover five periods in history and his life:

1. The early years, 1792 to March 31, 1813.

2. His service at Kingston from his arrival on May 16, 1813, to his capture by the Americans on October 5, 1813.

3. His experiences as a prisoner of war until he returned to Kingston in July of 1814.

4. His service at Kingston and adventures in Upper Canada until September 30, 1816.

5. The latter years, following his return to England.

What happened afterwards? As noted, we really know very little of his life after leaving Canada. One can only speculate about some of his activity, as we have done in the section on his biography.

David Wingfield: The Man

A review of his own writing tells us much about David Wingfield, the man, his values, his attitudes, and some of his beliefs.

Wingfield was a descriptive writer. It is apparent that he had obtained a reasonably good education and possessed a good command of the English language. His writing style was typical of the period with much of the sentence structure being conversational. The journal itself shows the flourish of an artistic hand, replete with the then-common overuse of upper case letters and inconsistent punctuation. Judged according to today’s conventions, he had much to learn. Yet compared to other more official documents written in the same time period, his approach was at least as good as those who prepared such papers for the Crown in Upper Canada. The style and the structure of the 1835 lease for Goderich Harbour, for example, between the Canada Company and the Crown, compare closely to that used by Wingfield. These characteristics are also apparent in numerous Crown Patents as archived in their original handwritten form in the Public Archives of Ontario or those held by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources at their archives and records facility in Peterborough.

On the other hand, as to his general character, his willingness to accept responsibility, and his leadership abilities, it is easier to derive such interpretations from the content of his writings. Apparently, even though we have only his own words as evidence on the subject, he stepped forward with great courage, even for a military man. He showed an ongoing willingness to take on any assigned task and to see it through to completion. Wingfield worked quite independently at times and showed good leadership. It appears that he never had to discipline any of the men under his control. He got along well with his fellow officers and seemed to be at ease when in conversation with the American commander and officers, and with dignitaries he encountered during his stay in America.

Never did he hesitate to offer his own opinions about battle strategy. In his writing he did not show any indecision in suggesting the strengths and shortcomings of his superiors or their antagonists in the military setting. It is apparent that he could see beyond the limited horizons of his own position. Wingfield demonstrated a kind of global vision that would suggest he had the potential for promotion to a higher rank with broader responsibilities of leadership and decision-making. His commentary about battle strategies seemed to show that he could see the larger picture clearly and could consider alternative approaches that might have been more successful.

His brief expression of momentary despair and his display of deeper emotion when taken prisoner by the Americans can be forgiven. He saw all chance of promotion and the prospects for his future naval career radically altered to encompass the bleak prospect of incarceration and long-term confinement in a foreign land. He seemed temporarily, at least, to be taken quite aback. On the other hand, his apparent absence of overt emotional reaction is portrayed in his reviews of several rather gruesome, quite bloody events and battle encounters, all written in a quite matter-of-fact fashion. He seemed able to distance himself from the carnage in a particularly rational fashion.

It is obvious that he was not required to learn the modern day niceties of expressing some of his attitudes in a politically correct fashion. Witness his rather blunt observations about the Natives he encountered in the earlier days of his travels in the Lake Ontario areas. Such descriptions were not atypical of other writers of the time and reflect the blatant prejudices directed at a culture that differed from the conventional mores of a European society. Stories exaggerating the actions of Native warriors in battle were a major propaganda tool of the time, used by both sides. And seemingly he was not to recognize the destabilizing impact of European contact on the Native culture. However, given his much more analytical observations about the aboriginal peoples, as expressed later during his visits to the Manitoulin Island and Mackinac Island areas, it is clear that he was not restricted to a prejudiced and oftentimes stereotypical view. It is interesting that Wingfield ascribes negative changes that occurred in the demeanour and lifestyle of the Natives as happening only after their contacts and engagements with the Europeans who interacted with them. It is also noteworthy that he felt highly enough about one Native youngster that he arranged passage home with him at the end of his Lake Service, and placed the young lad in an English school for a period of time.

It would have been very interesting to learn about his activities when he found himself “on the beach”¹⁰ once back in England. Did he farm or pursue any trade? Was he active in civic affairs in his community? Did he keep any other form of diary? Did he write for other purposes? Did he monitor the marine traffic and the naval activity in the nearby Gloucester harbour lands? Certain information, addressed later, indicates that he had great difficulty making ends meet. He attempted to supplement his modest naval pension income as a shopkeeper, but in what goods we have no information. At this stage, we know nothing more about his labours or his recreational pursuits. We can only speculate about what he might have done either to maintain his financial solvency or to amuse himself.

David Wingfield: The Naval Officer

Likewise, we are puzzled about whether he actually remained at the rank of lieutenant throughout these years. According to military archivist Timothy Dubé of Library and Archives Canada, “William R. O’Byrne’s A Naval Biographical Dictionary, published by John Murray, 1849, lists David Wingfield, upon his 1816 return to England as Lieutenant from 20 March 1815, after which he was placed on half pay.” The O’Byrne biography states, “… on his arrival he took up a commission bearing date 20 March 1815 …”¹¹ apparently backdated to the time just following his appointment as an acting lieutenant in the field.

While earlier references to his rank in the Wingfield journal are to master’s mate or lower, we accept that he was appointed to be acting lieutenant on February 15, 1815, at the time he was named as master of the Surprise, as he notes, just in passing, in his journal. His rank would have to be confirmed officially by the Admiralty at some time. We know from his service record that he received his official commission as lieutenant when he was discharged at half pay. It was not uncommon for a junior officer to have his rank confirmed at retirement, or even, at times, to be promoted. In Wingfield’s case, the official Officers Services¹² record book shows the following: “Recommended for confirmation of Acting Order by Captain W.F.W. Owen, Senior Officer on the Lakes of Canada, inclosing parole of honour as an hostage for security of Seamen claimed by England as deserters, taken on American War Ships; and for conduct which appeared to meet his approbation on Lake Huron,” dated February 26, 1816. The same record first shows him listed as lieutenant from March 21, 1815. While there are minor discrepancies in the dates used by various secondary sources, the official record book seems to be the best reference for documentation.

Was he ever actually promoted to the rank of commander? We have not been able to document the answer to this question. We know from the records, that as late as 1860, he was still listed as a lieutenant, just four years prior to his death.

One consideration is that, simply with the passage of time, as senior officers died off, according to Merilyn Hywel-Jones, a knowledgeable United Kingdom archives researcher, Wingfield would automatically inherit the rank of commander at some juncture. However, in 1861, in the census records for that year, he was still shown as a lieutenant. Did he receive a promotion then, in the last three years of his life? To date the question remains open as supporting documentation is yet to be discovered.

Further, his death certificate describes him as a “Greenwich Pensioner.” Our knowledge indicates that some retired naval personnel, injured, ill, or otherwise disabled, entered special care at a hospital called Greenwich, some distance downstream and east of London, at the prime meridian, in the well-known village of that same name. The mandate of the hospital, as expressed in its founding charter of October 25, 1694, stated the hospital’s purpose as, “the reliefe and support of Seamen serving on board the Ships and Vessells belonging to the Navy Royall... who by reason of Age, Wounds or other disabilities shall be uncapable of further service...and unable to maintain themselves.”¹³

According to the Internet site for the National Maritime Museum,¹⁴ the full name of the hospital was The Royal Hospital for Seamen, Greenwich: A Refuge for All. It has a remarkable history worth pursuing.

These naval retirees became known as Greenwich Pensioners. We are not aware of any system of ranks that were maintained within that group, although it is apparent that a committee or council of commissioners may have governed them. A posting on the website for Ancestry.com notes that there were also “out” patients on the Greenwich Pensioner list: “A Greenwich Hospital pensioner was a Royal Navy sailor who had been found to be suitable to be granted an army pension through disability or having completed full-service. He would subsequently be placed upon the Royal Hospital, Greenwich Board. The term therefore indicated that the man was a military pensioner as opposed to a civilian one. An out pensioner was one who lived at home and received his pension through an Admiralty agent. An in-pensioner was one actually resident at Greenwich.”¹⁵

Also noted elsewhere, you will read that Wingfield’s death certificate records him as “Commander” at half pay. A pencilled note on the front page of the journal copy from Library and Archives Canada also reads “Com.,” perhaps a short form for the same term. (The normal abbreviation is “Cdr.”) We do not know why this notation was added. We do have records to confirm that the Miss Wingfield who delivered the journal ascribed it to Commander David Wingfield, her ancestor — we believe, her father. It is possible that the title “Commander” was used simply as a term of endearment, worth more to an elderly sailor than an actual promotion from Admiralty House. To further confuse the issue, in the 1975 Union List of Manuscripts in Canadian Repositories,¹⁶ he is noted, surely in error, as “Commodore Wingfield.” Even after consideration of these matters, Wingfield’s status as Greenwich Pensioner is still unresolved.

Wingfield may have been sick or injured in his last years. As such, he possibly could have been convalescing in Greenwich Hospital, which was the base hospice for these pensioners, or was an outpatient who stayed at home. He could have been referred to as the commander there too, at the stage when respect mattered more than official titles. If so, his rank, “Commander,” most likely would be added to his death certificate.

We can make assumptions, but at this stage, there is no documentation to verify any of these speculations.

The Lake Service in Canada ¹⁷

Why were David Wingfield and the other almost five hundred seamen and officers sent to Canada in 1813?

America had declared war on Britain and Canada on June 18, 1812. The British Army, Canadian Militia, and Provincial Marine desperately needed help to hold off the attackers. Britain started to gather trained officers, soldiers, and seamen from European, Caribbean, and other service theatres, and to transport them to Canada as quickly as possible.

Why did America declare war? Literally hundreds of books and articles have been published about the war. The authors have posited many reasons for its declaration.

To simplify a still contentious subject, the reasons frequently given are:

1. Britain’s harassment of American shipping, to prevent supplies getting to Napoleon’s forces, and to ensure that adequate supplies reached British forces. Great Britain had been fighting, at times almost single-handedly, against Napoleon’s forces since 1792.¹⁸

2. Britain’s habit of taking British seamen forcibly, from neutral vessels, and impressing them into the British navy.

3. British fur-trading activity in the areas northwest of what America claimed as its own, e.g. Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Michigan, and even further west.

4. The presence of several British forts in these states, primarily to protect its fur trading activity, as well as to deal with and to influence the Native people.

The first two reasons were summed up by the War Hawks, primarily from Kentucky and the South with their oft-touted slogan, “Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights.”¹⁹ The latter two reasons were largely suppressed or ignored as irrelevant by some in the Congress and other officials of Washington who promoted the war. The New England states were generally unenthusiastic about the war. They were heavily involved in trade and shipping with nations considered to be the enemy, and a war would cut into their livelihood. Some of these states even refused to supply militia forces, which Washington demanded. Some of the reluctant states even refused to contribute to the war loans sought by Washington to support and strengthen the war effort.

Other states, particularly in the South, were much more eager to support the war. They wanted new land for settlement and development. From their perspective, the fur trade profits should line their own pockets rather than those of the British. According to some, the British and the Native people, whom some called “sojourners on our land,”²⁰ must be driven out so American expansion could proceed unfettered.

It is worth mentioning that in this text we have retained the name “Indian” as it was commonly used throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, until the current era. We respect that more contemporary terminology such as First Nations people or aboriginals might be more appropriate, but in the present context, we judge, with respect, that the usual nomenclature is more suitable in this context. It must be pointed out that both sides used the Native warriors as allies throughout the war. They, however, were fighting for what they deemed to be their own land, and would support the side that they felt had the best chance of settling a particular problem to their satisfaction.

There were others who felt that the War of Independence had not been completed satisfactorily and deemed that America had a divine right to control all of North America. They believed that the United States had a “manifest destiny”²¹ to capture and hold all of British North America, and that the country to the north was a ripening fruit, just ready for the plucking. In 1810, in a speech to Congress, Henry Clay, Democratic-Republican senator from Kentucky, stated, “The conquest of Canada is in your power. I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet.”²²

The David Wingfield Papers are well known to historians of the War of 1812, on both sides of the border. The 68-page journal has long been available from Library and Archives Canada, in Ottawa.²³ Historians of this war have read his journal up to the point when peace was declared and the fighting ceased in mid-February 1815. After that, the attitude seems to be, “What could he ever do or say that was worth putting into a history book?” Consequently, half of his journal seems to have been mostly ignored.

His actions, both generally and specifically during the winter of 1815–16, however, were outstanding. They alone elevate his stature to rival that of famous adventurers and explorers, such as Sir John Franklin, Martin Frobisher, Robert Falcon Scott, and Henry Hudson.

It is for this reason that we are writing this text to bring that neglected part of his journal to public attention.

Map 3: Map of Upper Canada and Great Lakes Basin, circa 1800, compiled by David William Smyth, Esq., at request of Major John G. Simcoe. This map shows Upper Canada and the adjacent waterways as they were recorded in the decade prior to Wingfield’s arrival in Canada.

Upper Canada at the Time of Wingfield’s Arrival

The situation, in brief, at the time when a war was started between the two nations, neither of which wanted a war, might be described as follows.

At the time, British North America was very sparsely settled, particularly Upper Canada, which covered a large part of present-day Ontario. The total population of Canada was some 300,000, while in the United States of America there were almost eight million persons. The border that really mattered in this war extended from Michilimackinac in the west to Quebec City in the east, some nine hundred miles in total. To defend this border, Sir George Prevost, governor general and commander-in-chief of His Majesty’s forces in the Canadas, 1811–15, commanded only around three thousand regular British soldiers and whatever militia he could organize. There were, of course, the Native tribes, as noted before, willing to fight on either side, but generally for their own interests. From the European perspective they were often considered unreliable, and at times a little more eager to kill the enemy than to take prisoners. Used to being independent, rarely could they be persuaded to obey orders given by the military officers. Both sides used the Native warriors, more for their ability to create terror than to fight the more regimented style of European warfare.

Settlement in Canada immediately adjacent to some of the border areas, particularly in the St. Lawrence River Valley and along the shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie was somewhat denser than in the Northern States. A large percentage of the population of Upper Canada — some historians estimate as much as 60 percent — were from America. These were settlers in search of land grants or opportunities not open to them south of the border. Except for the United Empire Loyalists, who had come as refugees from the American Revolution, these people had no loyalty to the Crown. The majority just wanted to be left alone, to get on with the heavy work of clearing land, planting and harvesting their crops, and building a sound future for themselves.

On the Great Lakes, the British had a larger fleet of vessels, but principally run by local men with very little naval training and even less experience in fighting. The British also had more ports and shipbuilding facilities along this part of the border. Kingston on Lake Ontario was the principal harbour, but York, the capital of the colony, generally seen as indefensible, and Fort Malden, located on the Detroit River, were also important. Chippawa, at Niagara Falls, was not used as a port until 1815.

On the other hand, the United States had no ships functioning on Lake Ontario until war was seen to be imminent, but they did have a small shipyard at Detroit. However, once the war got underway, the yards at Sackets Harbor in New York, near the east end of Lake Ontario, and Presque Isle, along the American shore of Lake Erie, in Pennsylvania, became extremely important. The outcome of the war on the Great Lakes depended largely on which side could build and arm ships the faster.

Both sides made extensive use of the local militia, comprised largely of farmers and tradesmen, who were expected to serve and fight as called upon. Many did not do so, and many settlers on both sides made it clear that they wanted nothing more than to hold to their peaceful civilian life. There were some cases reported where a general and his officers would hold a war council and make plans for an attack to take place the next morning. Come the appointed time, many of their forces had either disappeared or, at times, some refused to obey the order to march. Situations like this happened on both sides. Desertion was not uncommon, even desertion to the enemy. Spying and other forms of disaffection resulted in arrests and, in some cases, sentences to jail, exile, or even to death by hanging.

Since military supplies for the British forces came primarily from England, they were slow to arrive. There were never enough provisions or munitions. Even some of the food for the troops, and fodder for the horses were transported from overseas. The situation was helped somewhat by settlers in New York, Vermont, Ohio, and Michigan providing additional supplies to the British forces. It was the American forces that had a great advantage in the matter of supplies. Almost all of their requirements for shipbuilding, fighting, and general sustenance could come from New York or Boston to Sackets Harbor, or from the Pittsburgh area to Presque Isle, Pennsylvania.

The war had not progressed appreciably up to May 16, 1813, when David Wingfield arrived on the scene at Kingston. There had been some skirmishes on Lake Ontario but nothing of consequence. Shipbuilding rushed on apace at Kingston, Fort Malden, Sackets Harbor, and Presque Isle.²⁴

Military activities on land were another matter. On July 12, 1812, the Americans, under General William Hull, invaded Canada at Sandwich, now Windsor, but retreated on August 6 without accomplishing anything of importance. A week later, on July 17, 1812, the British, under Captain Charles Roberts, advancing from his base at Fort St. Joseph, immediately north of Passage de Tour in the St. Marys River, captured Fort Michilimackinac on Mackinac Island. A month later, on August 16, 1812, the British, under Sir Isaac Brock, captured Detroit.

Post at St. Joseph Island, 1804. The watercolour image, by Edward Walsh, illustrates a well-developed settlement on the island, with a number of out-buildings located beside the protective palisade. Daily visits from the Native people would supply needed fresh meat and seasonal fruit. The post was captured and burned by the Americans in 1813.

In the following spring, on April 29, 1813, the American fleet, under Commodore Isaac Chauncey attacked York. Major General Henry Dearborn captured the town, but Brigadier General Zebulon Pike and more than three hundred Americans were killed. The Americans withdrew to Sackets Harbor a few days later. On September 10, 1813, at the Battle of Lake Erie, the American Captain Oliver Hazard Perry defeated the British fleet under Captain Robert Heriot Barclay and captured the entire British fleet. This was the only major sea battle on the Great Lakes during the war.

Perry’s Victory on Lake Erie, September 10, 1813. This Currier and Ives print shows the American ships Lawrence and Niagara fighting various vessels from the British fleet during the Battle of Lake Erie.

Key Figures

The principal actors appearing on the war stage are identified below.

For the Canadian and British side:

Askin, Captain John: A member of a successful trading family based at Sandwich, now part of Windsor, across from Detroit. Askin was the Indian agent at Fort Mackinac on Mackinac Island. Although his title as captain is debatable, he was ranked a captain by the Indian Department of the British Army.

Barclay, Commander Robert Heriot: He joined the Royal Navy in 1797, and was commandant of the British naval forces on Lake Erie in 1813. Barclay led the British fleet at the Battle of Put-in-Bay, was defeated, and badly injured. He returned to England, where he died in 1837.

Brock, Major General Sir Isaac: Administrator of Upper Canada and commander of the forces there in 1810–12. He led the forces to capture Detroit on August 16, 1812, and led the attack against invading American troops at Queenston Heights on October 13. Although the British were victorious, Brock was mortally wounded and died on the battlefield.

Bulger, Lieutenant Andrew H.: A member of the Royal Newfoundlanders, he served in many parts of Upper Canada, including Fort Mackinac.

Collier, Captain Edward: He joined the Royal Navy in 1796. He commanded a detachment in the Great March (see chapter one, note 1) in January 1813. Collier also served as captain on a number of vessels on Lake Ontario in 1813–14, and later on Lake Huron.

De Watteville, Major General Louis: Along with his regiment of 1,300 men, he was shipped from Spain to Quebec in the spring of 1813. He served in many campaigns.

Downie, Captain George: Commander of the British naval forces, Lake Champlain, 1814.

Drummond, Lieutenant General Sir Gordon: Appointed president of the colonial government and commander of the troops in Upper Canada in 1813. He took Sir George Prevost’s place as governor general for a short period in 1815, Prevost having been recalled to explain his conduct of the Plattsburgh campaign of 1814.²⁵ He oversaw the British relocation, at arm’s length, from Fort Mackinac to a site on Drummond Island.

Dunlop, Dr. William “Tiger”: Physician, author, woodsman, soldier, politician, and raconteur, was fondly known as “The Warden of the Forests,” in his role with the Canada Company.²⁶

Le Couteur, Lieutenant John: A member of the 104th Foot, he came to Canada on June 21, 1812, where he served the entire war years and took part personally in the Great March. He was born the same year as Wingfield, but took the army route rather than the naval one for his military career.

Livingston, Robert: Employed by the army, he was a tough and active courier for the Indian Department.

McDouall (also spelled MacDowell), Lieutenant Colonel Robert: A member of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, he was commander at Fort Mackinac in 1814.

McLean, Lieutenant Hector, RN: He was in charge of the Drummond (transport) when captured by the Americans at the same time as Wing-field was taken on the Confiance.

Mulcaster, Captain Sir William Rowe, RN: He joined the Royal Navy in 1793, at the age of eight, and served with Yeo in other theatres, including the Battle of Cayenne, with the Portuguese in 1809. He came to Canada with Yeo, and was knighted for his bravery at the battle known as the Burlington Races.²⁷ He was wounded in the attack on Oswego, and was sent to England to recuperate. He died in 1837.

Prevost, Sir George: Governor general and commander-in-chief of His Majesty’s forces in the Canadas, 1811–15. He was recalled to England in 1815.

Vincent, Brigadier General John: Commander of the British forces in the Niagara Frontier during 1813.

Worsley, Lieutenant Miller, RN: Master of the Nancy at Nottawasaga, who scuttled her rather than let her fall into American hands.²⁸Yeo, Sir James Lucas, RN: Joined the navy in 1793 and was knighted for his success at the Battle of Cayenne, French Guiana, in 1809. He also received a knight’s commandery of St. Benito d’Avis from the prince regent of Portugal, being the only Protestant ever so honoured. He was made commander-in-chief of the British naval forces on the Great Lakes in 1813. He served there from May 5, 1813, until March 1815. He continued on active service in the Royal Navy until his death in 1818, at the age of thirty-six.

For the American side:

Armstrong, John: The American secretary of war, 1813–14.

Chauncey, Commodore Isaac, USN: Commander of naval forces on the Great Lakes throughout the war.

Clay, Henry: Speaker of the House of Representatives, 1811.

Dearborn, Major General Henry: Governor of Michigan Territory, commander of the Army of the Northwest from April to August, 1812.

Gregory, Lieutenant Francis, USN: Continued in the navy, reaching the rank of admiral in 1862. He died at age seventy-six.

Harrison, William Henry: Commander of the Army of the Northwest from September 1812.

Macdonough, Commodore Thomas: Led the United States naval forces at Lake Champlain.

Madison, James: President of the United States of America, 1809–17.

Perry, Captain Oliver Hazard:²⁹ Was in command of naval forces on Lake Erie, 1813. He defeated the British at Put-in-Bay.

Sinclair, Captain Arthur: Commodore Chauncey’s flag captain in the battle known as the Burlington Races, September 13, 1813.

Wilkinson, Major General James: Led the Army of the North. He led the American forces from Sackets Harbor down the St. Lawrence River to attack Montreal in October 1813. He suffered defeat at Chrysler’s Farm.

Woolsey, Master Commandant Melancthon Taylor: Led American naval forces in several actions on Lake Ontario in 1813. He continued in command of the Lake forces at Sackets Harbor until 1824.

The Early Career of David Wingfield

David Wingfield entered the Royal Navy November 23, 1806, as second-class volunteer on board the Ruby (64)³⁰ with captains John Draper, Robert Hall, and Robert Williams. A year later, he accompanied the Ruby expedition of 1807 to Copenhagen during the Napoleonic Wars, and was often in action with the Danish gun-boats in the Little Belt, an area within the sea around Denmark. After serving for a few weeks in the Downs in the Agincourt (64), under Captain William Kent, he removed as midshipman³¹ in March 1810, to the Fylla (20) under Captain Edward Rodney, on the Guernsey station. He was subsequently, in June 1811, present in an unsuccessful boat attack made on two French man-of-war brigs under covering fire from the Firm gun-brig; which vessel, after running aground, was burnt by her own crew to avoid her supplies being taken and used by the enemy. While attached next, from August 1811 until March 1813, to the Diadem (64) under Captain John Phillimore, Wingfield cruised in the North Sea, visited Lisbon, Portugal, and was actively employed in cooperation with the patriots of the north coast of Spain. On leaving the Diadem, he joined the Lake Service of Canada.

This history of Wingfield’s early service was gleaned from A Naval Biographical Dictionary, published in London in 1894 by John Murray. In addition, his service record, which can be seen in the manuscript room of the British Museum, summarizes his early service as: 1806–10 in the North and Baltic seas; 1810–11 off the French coast; 1811–13 off the north coast of Spain. The record notes that he “Passed, February 1813.” The reference “passed” most likely refers to his success with the written examination required to attain the rank of midshipman, which he carried at that time.

More information about Wingfield’s early life and family may be found in Part III: The Biography of David Wingfield.

Notes Regarding the Transcription of the Journal

David Wingfield wrote his story in 1828, twelve years after he left Canada, while, we presume, a resident in Gloucester. His manuscript is presented in a fair copperplate hand, not written by quill pen but probably a dip pen, a fairly recent invention, probably manufactured in nearby Birmingham, which had become the world capital of metal-pen nib production by the 1850s. The journal is generally quite legible. In the transcription, where something is illegible, the reader will find brackets around the number of words, which could not be deciphered, e.g. “(four illegible),” or we have substituted “(undecipherable)” when a word, or a portion of a word could not be discerned. In a few cases, we have entered, in square parentheses, what we believe Wingfield intended. The transcription was completed from a photocopy of the fragile original document, which has now been withdrawn from circulation at Library and Archives Canada for conservation reasons.

Don Bamford, commenting about the copying task, says, “My flat-bed scanner gave up in disgust early on. It was just not up to the task of reading the manuscript. My biological-optical scanner and cognitive-recognition equipment was nearly eighty-eight years old before I even touched the keyboard. However, as I worked on, I tried not to put anything into the manuscript or to take anything out of it. There were only two places (as I recall) where Wingfield had repeated himself, and they were obvious. In one instance one word had been repeated, in another case, a phrase had been repeated. I have deleted both.” From Don’s experience of writing longhand extensively, he knows what happens when one gets tired. At times, Wingfield’s handwriting had become quite small and harder to read.

Wingfield frequently used a squiggle followed by the letter c. The context suggests that he meant et cetera, thus, given the challenge for the modern day computer to reproduce Wingfield’s squiggle, we have substituted all references with “etc.” He also used the letter p followed by a word, such as week, diem, or cent meaning “per week,” “per diem,” and “percent.” This usage has been updated in the transcription. These idiosyncrasies added some difficulties to an otherwise easy transliteration. It should also be noted that Wingfield was not consistent with his spelling. Harbor and harbour are often inter-changed, as are Surprise and Surprize, and Sackets and Sacketts, for example. There are other peculiarities as well. On one occasion, he uses the more contemporary spelling jail instead of his usual archaic gaol. It should further be noted that the spelling Sackets has been used in the rest of the manuscript, save for those instances whether other authors or artists are quoted and have used one of the several alternate spellings. In this presentation of Wing-field’s journal, intended for the general reader, the general spelling, with the exception of words mentioned in this section, has been updated and made consistent.

Page One from Wingfield’s sixty-eight page journal. The handwritten notes have become faded and discoloured, yet are still quite legible. The adventurous spirit and the national pride of the author can be felt in his descriptive phraseology.

The general sentence structure has been preserved and it is noted that writing style, grammar, punctuation, and spelling have evolved a considerable degree in the intervening 179 years. We have made some adjustments to the punctuation throughout the text to help the reader work through Wingfield’s long, complex and often convoluted sentence structure. While these peculiarities can add interest to the text, we have replaced the archaic “long s” — usually printed as fs — with the customary ss as used in contemporary spelling. It is interesting to note the ongoing discussion, especially in genealogical circles, about what to do with the transliteration of the handwritten symbol that looks like the letter f without its right-hand cross bar. The symbol does not seem to have a modern-day font equivalent in word processing software. As many of Wingfield’s sentences were, by today’s standards, very long, a change of topic, usually marked by a colon or semi-colon in the original, is in this version marked by a period with a new sentence following.

Readers of the original document would find inconsistencies with the spellings related to the Mackinac, as pronounced Mackinaw, usually in American quarters. The first name, given by the Native people, and taken over by the French was Missilimackinac. The fort was located at what is now St. Ignace, but was moved to what is now Mackinaw City. When the British arrived, they changed the name to Michilimackinac and moved the fort to the island. The name was too long, so the British or Americans changed the name to Mackinac, which is today the name one will find on most contemporary maps. But Mackinac is often pronounced Mackinaw, as noted — hence, the potential for confusion.

More bewilderment abounds: In the same part of Lake Huron, there is Mackinaw State Forest, Mackinaw City, Colonial Michilimackinac, and of course, the Straits of Mackinac. The common usage today is Mackinac, but in 1813, Michilimackinac was used most often. The spelling Michi-lamackinac has also been seen. Most historians write Mackinac in reference to historic times. Wingfield also spells Manitoulin as Manatoulin; (it is also seen spelled Manitoolin by Wingfield’s colleague, Owen.) Wing-field also spelled Nottawasaga as Nottawaysagua.

An 1872 oil painting of Fort Mackinac by Seth Eastman.

At times, Wingfield played fast and loose with the use of capital letters. In fact, at times it was difficult to determine whether he intended to use the upper case or lower form. Such was the custom of the time. Other handwritten documents of the era show the same overuse. In those many instances, common usage for today has been applied. If any mistakes have occurred in the transcription, it has been unintentional and the authors apologize. Other historians, amateur or professional, will be able to refer to the typescript knowing it is essentially identical to the manuscript as Wingfield wrote it. All of the authors’ notes are shown inside square brackets, not to be confused with Wingfield’s words, which are in the regular font.

The * found in the journal manuscript indicates the starting page number in the original hand-written document, which occupies sixty-eight foolscap pages. These, and the numerals for endnotes, along with the alterations as outlined above are the only additions that have been made to the journal. Finally, the names of ships have been italicized in all places to be consistent with contemporary practice. The journal has been divided quite arbitrarily into six sections based on the different locations and the times that Wingfield served in that placement.

While the sixty-eight-page journal has been our main source for this history, countless additional documents have been used to expand and expound upon the matters raised by Wingfield in his writings. We have done our best to document all sources and have written extensive additional notes to supplement the text. Every attempt has been made to be accurate and to acknowledge the multitude of sources for our research. While it is not any excuse that we claim only to be mere amateur historians, for those who would find fault, or, for any errors we have committed, we most humbly apologize for any offence we might have created. Any such errors brought to our attention or the publisher’s will be corrected for future editions.