The Battle of Chippewa
By James B. Daniels

American History  | 0 comments  |  Print This Post  |  Email This Post

Up until early July 1814, the battlefield performance of the American army in the War of 1812 had been most notable for its incompetence, errors, amateurism and missed opportunities. Even on July 5, the 3,500 regulars who had encamped near the Niagara River in Canada wore the gray wool uniform of the state militias because there wasn’t enough regulation blue material to go around. As they dutifully followed orders to parade along the river to mark the nation’s 38th anniversary of independence, they remained oblivious to the fact that an enemy army was about to pounce on them. Potential disaster loomed. But on this day, largely because of the efforts of Brigadier General Winfield Scott, the army found its footing. The Battle of Chippewa created a legend, inspired generations of military professionals and even instilled such pride that gray remains the color of the uniform worn proudly by cadets at the world’s most esteemed military academy.

The U.S. Army was aging in 1812; it was largely led by veterans of the Revolution, a war more than 30 years past. While many of them were excellent battlefield commanders in their day, time had taken its toll. On the political side of the equation, the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson and many of the other heroes of American independence regarded a standing military as a threat to America’s liberty and an unnecessary expense. As a result, the U.S. Army had been constantly short of funds—it lacked uniforms and equipment for the duration of the War of 1812—and its officers were often chosen more for political connections than for competence.

The army’s shortcomings were further highlighted by the success of the U.S. Navy on the high seas. In contrast to the army’s geriatric leadership, the navy was dominated by men still in their 30s. Young, dashing and daring, the sailors’ recent combat with the Barbary pirates off the coast of Tripoli added to their growing reputation. Many of the navy’s wartime commanders were not professional officers but privateers, men who were authorized by the American government to attack enemy shipping and keep the profit of whatever they captured. These men had long made their living with their ship-handling and leadership skills. The very process of recruiting privateers weeded out the less competent. No one who doubted his ability volunteered to pit his skills against the world’s mightiest fleet, the British Royal Navy.

The U.S. Navy also benefited from a technical advantage that the U.S. Army did not. New England shipyards had been producing the finest frigates in the world since before the American Revolution, unmatched by even the best British shipbuilders. Another great advantage was that the merchant marine offered an ongoing chance for ambitious young men to hone their sea-faring skills, but ground combat could be practiced only in the underfunded and always too small army or, worse, in the state militias. Although the army’s numbers were greater than the navy’s, its training and discipline were deplorable. Militias generally elected their own leaders and assumed the right to “un-elect” officers if the situation seemed to justify it.

Of all the miscalculations of the War of 1812, perhaps the greatest was the Americans’ confidence that they could easily seize Canada and make it part of the United States. They had good reason for wanting to unite North America under the Stars and Stripes. The British had been using Canada as a base—to trade for furs with the Indians in the American-claimed Ohio territory and to encourage those same Indians to attack American settlements along the frontier. Military and civilian leaders alike firmly believed that the presence of the U.S. Army north of the border would inspire the Canadians to throw off the British yoke. The American perceptions and intelligence proved to be fatally flawed. In fact, the Canadians were determined to remain loyal subjects of the Crown.

Tags: 17th - 18th Century, American History, Historical Conflicts

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.