Talk:Battle of Plattsburgh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] References needed

First let me say that this is a superb article. But it is seriously marred by the fact that it lists no references. And some statements need inline citations (For example, the quotes from Roosevelt and Churchill both need a citation.) I know there was a great book all about the battle that came out a few years ago (entitled something like "The Last Invasion"... but I may be remembering wrong)... I will look into that and add it if I can track it down. I hope others will do the same. Blueboar 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

It seems clear enough to me that the British were defeated on the lake, but withdrew on land. There were two separate battles, one of which was a decisive victory for the US, and the other of which was handed to them without significant engagement. This is a review of The Final Invasion: Plattsburgh, the War of 1812’s Most Decisive Battle by David G. Fitz-Enz in Parameters (journal), a publication of the U.S. Army War College:

Prevost was a cautious commander, used to being on the defensive, whose instructions warned against “being cut off by too extended a line of advance,” as had occurred at Saratoga. Looking ahead to winter, feeling that a ground attack would be fruitless without the naval transport to sustain a further advance, and assuming that he could build another flotilla to resume the offensive in 1815, Prevost ordered his army to withdraw, despite a superiority of at least three to one, odds that would nearly guarantee an attacker’s victory in 1814. There was therefore no true land battle at Plattsburgh, though Fitz-Enz fully describes land operations and the skirmishing that did occur. Prevost was much criticized for his withdrawal, although Fitz-Enz quotes the Duke of Wellington’s praise for Prevost’s humanitarianism and understanding of logistical constraints. Indeed, the many scholars who criticize the American effort in this war would do well to pay more attention to problems of supply, for tactical capability was rarely wanting by 1814. Yet Fitz-Enz does not really address whether the powerful British army might have affected the equation by driving the Americans from Plattsburgh and trapping Macdonough between ship and shore batteries, thus forcing him onto the open lake, where the British could fire from stand-off positions. Pressing his naval commander to attack prematurely, Prevost hazarded the resource he felt most essential to his enterprise, and the one least prepared for combat.
The battle of Plattsburgh coincided with the attack on Fort McHenry and the siege of Fort Erie on the Niagara frontier. Outnumbered and outgunned, determined American forces prevailed every time. Wellington told his superiors that he could do little to remedy the situation, that “the war was practically ended by Prevost’s retreat. What remained was purely episodical in character.” This may be an exaggerated conclusion, for the British did try again at New Orleans, but the result was the same, again due in large part to the small Regular Army force that formed the core of American defenses in all these campaigns.


Thus, that Prevost withdrew is the unremarkable way that a professor at the US military's own war college describes the situation. We could reword as "American victory (marine), British withdrawal (ground)" or similar, to distinguish the dependency of the latter on the former. --Dhartung | Talk 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion makes sense in light of two separate battles. Perhaps a modification of the info box thus:-
|Result1= Land Battle - British Withdrawal
|Result2= Naval Battle - American Victory
This modification could easily be extended to other info boxes for similar conflicts to prevent edit disputes. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It might prevent editorial disputes; but since the entire British campaign was a complete failure as a consequence of the naval defeat, "American Victory" is, to my mind, the only truthful verdict. Attempts to disguise this by focussing on irrelevant actions are only relentless pro-British POV-pushing which (as British myself) I find embarassing. It is the case that one or two edits in the past have gone a bit too far in describing the British decision to throw up the whole campaign and march back to Canada as some sort of decisive American land victory also, but a decently-written overview should put the land fighting in its proper context. HLGallon (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm American, not British, and my point of view is that we won the war, so why not be honest that in this one little battle which we barely fought we didn't actually pull out a "win"? In wargaming there are gradations of victory conditions beyond binary one-side-won and one-side-lost interpretations. Why can't our infobox do the same? --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dhartung. Articles are about individual battles and the infobox should report the result of each battle. Note: not only am I British, I'm an archivist for the Duke of Wellington's Regiment of which one of the antecedent regiments, the 76th Regiment of Foot, took part in the land battle, whilst the other, the 33rd Regiment of Foot, was involved in many others. Some we won others we lost. The Battle of Guilford Court House is classed as a 'Pyrrhic' victory for the British, but to be honest if the 1,046 'missing' American Militia men had regrouped and returned,instead of going home, they would probably have won the day as the 33rd was just about decimated and out of ammunition. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say this should be left simply as "American Victory". Winston Churchill called it a decisive American victory, but lets save that for another day. (Red4tribe (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

This one needs to be left as an American Victory, God knows there were enough American outright defeats to go around in this war without trying to make an extra one out of this. This battle did effect the outcome of the Ghent treaty and in the light was one of the more important battles along with the repulse at Baltimore pretty much ended the war with current Prime Minister ordering Brit negoiators to accept status quo anti-bellum. There is little or no grounds for changing the battle and never was. Provost left his sick and wounded to the American's which speaks for the haste of the withdraw. I've got sourcing on this so I will bail in here.
On another note one of our editors got himself blocked over edit warring. I'll ask everyone to remember the 3RR rule and WP:CIV. I don't love any article enough to enjoy seeing a young editor getting himself in trouble. So everyone knows where I stand on this, I am an American and I think America lost this war, however being the contentious and ever shifting war that it was and being as unable as anyone else to prove otherwise... I'm sticking to status quo anti-bellum. Tirronan (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)