Talk:Battle of Stoney Creek

Route of U.S. troops advance from Niagara to Stoney Creek?

Is anyone aware of a reliable source that references the route they would have taken? TIA Natty10000 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Elting, Amateurs to Arms, p.125 "advancing westward along the lakeshore road..."

But what qualified as the then-lakeshore road? Is that today's Escarpment-hugging road through Grimsby, Beamsville, etc. or another route?Natty10000 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Buck and Ball

The sentence, "The U.S. Twenty-Fifth was firing 'buck and ball' ammunition (12 buckshot balls instead of the usual .65 calibre ball and 3 buckshot) which effectively turned their muskets into shotguns", seems incorrect to me. In other works I have seen the .65 calibre ball and 3 buckshot described as "buck and ball"; 12 buckshot would appear to be best described as "buckshot". I hesitate to make a hasty correction, seeing that the sentence is cited (Elliott, which I do not have readily to hand), but it is possible that the source is mistaken on this point. HLGallon (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad. The actual quote in "Strange Fatality" was "using a variation on the American favourite "buck and ball" ammunition". Entry's been adjusted accordinglyNatty10000 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fitzgibbon in drag?

Just perused "Battle in the Dark: Stoney Creek, June 6, 1813" by G.F.G. Stanley and was amused by the tale told by Fitzgibbon's daughter of her father gathering intelligence on the disposition of the U.S. troops and encampment. Carrying a basket of butter and dressed as a "buxom farm woman" (to use Stanley's description), his disguise "was so complete...that he was allowed to traverse the entire camp, and gain considerably more information than he appeared to give".

Is this an apocryphal fiction created by his daughter (as it seems) or is there some other evidence to back this story up? If the latter, I'd think it an interesting addition to the entry. Natty10000 (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Much of Stanley's source seem to be from A veteran of 1812 : the life of James FitzGibbon (written by his daughter), including the basket of butter, and the line about information gained and given, which he apparently quoted verbatim. But in this book, the disguise is listed simply as a "settler" (page 69 of the .pdf download). I see no mention of him dressing as a woman. In order to gather and seed information (and sell his butter), he must have interacted verbally, and surely doing so would have given away his gender.

But, I doubt that George Stanley was the sort of person who would make something like this up from thin air. I don't have access to Battle in the Dark - does he include a bibliography which lists any other source for his claim? Miranda1989 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In "Battle in the Dark", the part about "buxom farm woman" wasn't in quotes so he isn't drawing it exactly from Mary's biography of him (though where it had its Genesis I'm at a loss). The exact quote from BITD is ""According to his daughter, who prepared his biography, Fitzgibbon "disguised himself as a settler" and, taking a basket of butter on his arm, "went boldly into the American camp." His disguise as a buxom farm woman was "so compete... that he was allowed to traverse the entire camp, and gain considerably more information than he appeared to give." The buxom woman thing stood out like a sore thumb to me when I read it because (at least in my mind), given the mores of the time it was written (even more so than when it allegedly took place), to have dressed up as a woman I would think would have been cause for no small amount of tittering rather than remarks on the creativity of his boldness. That and I find it a tad difficult to buy that cross-dressing in such a manner would have fooled any but the most myopic or drunk (or both) of sentries, a disguise that I would think would be rendered useless the moment he spoke.

Now the book appears to be aimed at the younger set (although he does use quite a bit verbatim from letters from Fitzgibbon) and absent any footnoting, I have to assume that Stanley may have been taking some creative license. That said, it would be interesting if there were some truth to the story. I didn't check for a bibliography but I'll have a boo at the book next time I'm down at the Toronto Reference Library. Natty10000 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion on this at http://www.uelac.org/Book-Reviews/PDF/Billy-Green-and-More-Balderdash.pdf page 10. The Fitzgibbon versions are among a couple of variations on the tale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCHSmem (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This story at least has legs. However, from some of FitzGibbon's accounts it seems that he was proficient as a scout and had a predilection for 'going in front' of his men and commanding from personal knowledge. Given the terrain, it is quite possible that he could have made observations from cover, possibly by telescope, as per other instances. FitzGibbon seemed to have a knack of applying his experience of military operations to achieve a great understanding of situations.

BTW: it's FitzGibbon not Fitzgibbon. Gerald RW (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Article coordinates

Having gone back over the article, I'm wondering whether the users of this page are well-served by the current coordinates (43.217271°N 79.766244°W / 43.217271; -79.766244) which land you in the middle of the Gage Farm aka Battlefield House as opposed to here (43.218493°N 79.764344°W / 43.218493; -79.764344), the knoll that was the site of the U.S. gun emplacement, the taking of which by the volunteers under Fraser and Plenderleath was pivotal to the turn in fortune of the battle's dynamic.

What say you? Natty10000 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Year of Snider's death

Two different years have been cited: 1873 and 1877. The 1873 date was linked to "Billy Green and balderdash", a book by the Stoney Creek Historical Society rebutting assertions made in "Strange Fatality". The 1877 date has been linked to a genealogy page and a personal assertion by an unregistered editor. At this point, all things being equal I'm inclined to trust the 1873 date as such a glaring mistake would undermine an entire book. However, if the person insisting on the 1877 date can provide requisite proof that this is the correct person and that trumps (and that doesn't require a trip to a cemetery), I'd have no issue. 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natty10000 (talk • contribs)

I see you've sourced a link. Is the SCHS aware of this error? I mean given the nature of the book, I'm surprised that they haven't corrected at least their download version even if the print versions to date are committed to that particular error  Natty10000 | Natter  15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FitzGibbon NOT Fitzgibbon

This is on record in writing from FitzGibbon himself (he was a bit of a stickler for precision). Gerald RW (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Who did what?

"although this is not mentioned in any official British record" - dispatches are typically flawed. First, the acts of those other than officers were rarely noted and in many cases a laudable act was attributed to the highest ranking officer within the vicinity while blame was often assigned to the inability of juniors to follow orders or placed on some unfortunate officer not close enough to the action to have a result (Lord Cochrane complained vociferously that, after single-handedly grounding a French fleet and destroying several ships, the admiral who never moved himself or his flotilla closer than 9 miles claimed the 'victory' despite Cochrane himself complaining that victory was far from complete; FitzGibbon himself had similar issues with the dispatches of Francis Bond Head which claimed glory for actions where he was actually in absentia). One must consider who was drafting the dispatches and what sources they were drawing on (as these individuals were rarely at the sharp edge or even present), allowing that dead heros tell no tales. Certainly the dispatches didn't spin Vincent's adventure as wandering in the woods nor play up loss of his sword which in those days would be a major disaster (even an indication of capitulation).

Of course, personal recollections can also be suspect in the first person and more-so second or third hand. Personal records can also be slanted, particularly communications to higher authority which in the day were often littered with faint praise for those above as a matter of style. As always, newspaper coverage would eventually report several dissimilar versions of events.

It is interesting to compare the 'history' of this event from the perspective of Americans versus Canadians: source selectivity seems to be an essential ingredient. John Norton's recollections in spite of his extensive British military training is generally jaundiced towards the general conduct of military on both sides; James FitzGibbon's perspective is biased towards the merits of skill and discipline and vice-versa; neither had a fond view of reckless 'heroism' preferring the merits of calculated risk taking. They say that history is written by the victors - more exactly audiences prefer tales of success to admissions of failure - although in this conflict, as in many others, victory is less than conclusive: some observers on the putative winning side advocated that further annihilation of fleeing American forces bottle-necked against the river was an available option not taken, therefore, incomplete victory. As in most wars, the actual victory was the economic impact i.e. the destruction and capture of considerable quantities of supplies (American quartermasters were in anticipation of even larger forces) versus the US government's policy of prosecuting the war on an extremely frugal budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald RW (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Gerald RW (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The tale of Billy Green

This story, like all good ones, probably has a grain of truth; however, it at least aggrandizes his role. First, the area in question was not unknown to British forces, having previously 'owned' the area and militia, of whom Billy's seniors were arrested as suspected members. Second, there were at least three groups of natives operating in the area: 'western' comprising Odawa, Chippewa and a few Delaware, Potawatomi and Wendat under Norton and Blackbird, 'central' comprising Six Nations and Mississauga under John Brant and sometimes Norton, 'eastern' comprising St Laurence Iroquois, Nipissing, Algonquins and other 7 Fires tribes under Ducharme - all of which were operating forward off the military, among other things harassing American piquets and other forward positions. Third, Harvey himself is recorded as having scouted the American encampment. One sure indicator of detailed fore-knowledge is the initial attack which was the location where American forces had been posted earlier in the day (but had later vacated). Also, key intelligence on which the attack was based was that the Americans were spread out over an area of more than a mile which indicated that a much smaller force might have success in a surprise attack. It seems that few natives were involved in the event itself which suggests any native intelligence might have come from the western group which had an aversion to night fighting (unlike the other two). Further, the organization of forces including adjustments to the main British forces in preparation for this foray could hardly have been a spur-of-the-moment affair. 99.241.228.72 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Stoney Creek. 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/20080510115225/http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/people/green_scout.html to http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/people/green_scout.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403102134/http://www.myhamilton.ca:80/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/CultureandRecreation/Arts_Culture_And_Museums/HamiltonCivicMuseums/Battlefield/ to http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/CultureandRecreation/Arts_Culture_And_Museums/HamiltonCivicMuseums/Battlefield/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)