“A Dreadful Slaughter”: The Battle of Lundy’s Lane, July 25, 1814

Today, join Kevin Pawlak as he takes a look at the bloodiest battle of one of America’s nearly forgotten conflicts, the War of 1812.

(Library of Congress)

The War of 1812 is quite possibly one of the most forgotten wars in American history.  Perhaps because of its proximity to the War for Independence, perhaps because it is overshadowed by an expansion of the United States in the early 1800’s in the history books.  However, it should not be this way.  For three years in the early history of the United States, the fate of the republic was uncertain.  Never was this more clear than in the summer of 1814 on the banks of the Niagara River as campaigns were being waged that were supposed to end the war.  Originally, the campaign had gone in favor of American forces under the command of Major General Jacob Brown but one battle, the bloodiest of the war, occurred along a small country road known as Lundy’s Lane on July 25, 1814.  It was fought within earshot of one of the world’s natural wonders, Niagara Falls, it would greatly alter the Niagara Campaign of 1814 for both the British and American forces involved, and it would prove to be one of the most savage battles in North America up to that time.

Despite the ferocity of the fight and the death toll that it caused, modern historians and authors have greatly disagreed on exactly what this battle did to change the face of the War of 1812, if it did that at all.  For example, John K. Mahon’s The War of 1812 only contains a short section about the battle and does little to place the Battle of Lundy’s Lane into the larger picture of the war.  Following his description of the battle, however, Mahon hints at the significance of the battle to the Niagara Campaign of 1814.  Though the Battle of Lundy’s Lane did not end the campaign, it did alter American General Jacob Brown’s plans to “secure for the United States a foothold in Canada.”[1]  Richard V. Barbuto’s Niagara 1814, which focuses solely on the Niagara Campaign of 1814, speaks along similar lines.  He wrote that the British “victory at Lundy’s Lane was a major setback to the American effort” on the Niagara Peninsula.[2]  Yet, even this statement can prove controversial for historians, as there is much debate about who was the victor of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane.

Victory in war can have many definitions: strategic, tactical, lower casualties or casualty rate than your opponents, or complete annihilation of your enemy.  In these terms, finding the victor of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane is not easily discernible amid the immediate aftermath and effects of the battle.  Historian Donald Graves, author of Where Right and Glory Leads!  The Battle of Lundy’s Lane, 1814, wrote of the outcome of the battle that “…if the world had ended at midnight, 25 July 1814, LL [Lundy’s Lane] would have been an American tactical victory.  By withdrawing from the field, however, and allowing the British to repossess themselves of their artillery, Brown gave up the fruits of that victory.”[3]  Other historians tend to agree with Graves.  Richard Barbuto also concedes that the battle was tactically an American victory.  However, the victor from a strategic standpoint is a different story.  Due to the ruin of Brown’s overall plan, his failure “to destroy a British army in the open,” and “the balance of combat power on the Niagara Peninsula [being] swung from the invaders [Americans] to the defenders [British],” it becomes evident that Lundy’s Lane a British victory.[4]  Graves would agree with this because “given these results, the conclusion is inescapable that the British won the battle of Lundy’s Lane.”[5]  Overall, a tactical American victory but a strategic British victory seems to be the consensus among historians.  Nevertheless, historians of this period of American history still debate this issue.  In order to determine the outcome and impact of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane, one must look at the two armies that fought there, how the battle came to be fought along Lundy’s Lane, and what the effects of the battle were according to the actual participants.

The armies that fought at Lundy’s Lane became the focus of these two warring nations during the summer of 1814.  Each army was at its peak performance during the Niagara Campaign of 1814, which partially resulted in the ferocity of the fight at Lundy’s Lane.  The British Army on the Niagara Peninsula was under the overall command of Lieutenant General Gordon Drummond while Major General Phineas Riall commanded the Right Division, that division consisting of the troops that would fight at Lundy’s Lane.  Both Riall and Drummond would be present at the battle and Drummond would assume overall command of the British forces while both he and Riall were present.  The British Right Division was divided into three forces: one under Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Pearson (1,157 men), another under Joseph Morrison (761 men), and the last under Colonel Hercules Scott (1,720 men).  Combined, Phineas Riall and Gordon Drummond had 3,638 men at their disposal as well as eight guns.  Nearly 85% of the Right Division was regular soldiers, an impressive number that would show during the fighting to come.[6]

The American force at Lundy’s Lane was designated the Left Division and it was commanded by Major General Jacob Brown.  Brown’s infantry was divided into three brigades. The First and Second brigades, commanded by Brigadier Generals Winfield Scott and Eleazar W. Ripley, respectively, consisted of United States Regulars and totaled 1,962 men (1,080 in Scott’s Brigade and 882 in Ripley’s Brigade).  The Third Brigade numbered 546 men from New York, Pennsylvania, and Canadian militia and volunteer units under the command of Brigadier General Peter Porter of the New York Militia.  Major Jacob Hindman commanded the artillery battalion of at least fourteen guns, though only nine saw action on July 25.  Two companies of cavalry accompanied the infantry and artillery.  Thus, Brown’s Left Division consisted of 2,778 men, about 72% of whom were regular soldiers.[7]  By this time in the war, both armies were well trained and were ready and willing to stand up face-to-face with the enemy, which is one of the primary reasons why the Battle of Lundy’s Lane would prove to be such a savage conflict.  However, before the battle itself can be examined and before the British Right Division stood toe-to-toe with the American Left Division on the shores of the Niagara River, it is important to note the events that led to the Battle of Lundy’s Lane.

Being as it was the central theater of the War of 1812, overwhelming control of the Niagara Theater by either side would allow control of the Great Lakes, which contained the main shipping lanes for both armies.  Control of these lakes allowed whichever side controlled them a fast route of transportation to shift supplies and troops, as necessary.  Realizing its importance, both the British and the Americans decided to focus a majority of their efforts on the Niagara Theater in the summer of 1814.  Americans determined that a campaign against the British in this theater was the most viable and provided for the greatest chance of success.  The British high command also saw the potential of an offensive here, especially because of its numerical superiority over the Americans in the theater.[8]  With the goal of reaching and securing “the British post at the head of Burlington Bay,” the Americans began their campaign first, thus gaining the initiative.[9]  Their first objective was to take Fort Erie, which they did while suffering only four casualties and gaining 137 British prisoners.[10]  In an attempt to stop this American invasion, Riall assaulted Brown’s division at the Battle of Chippawa, fought on July 5, 1814.  The British received a bloody nose here as “this affair was not attended with the success which I had hoped for,” wrote Riall in his official report of the battle.[11]  After two quick American victories, the invasion slowed down.  Brown consolidated his forces behind the Chippawa River and waited for naval support that was to come on the all-important Great Lakes.[12]  Meanwhile, the British were also pausing to lick their wounds.  However, this lull would not last much longer.

Ironically, events on the American (eastern) side of the Niagara River would trigger the next major fight in the Niagara campaign, the Battle of Lundy’s Lane, fought on the Canadian (western) side of the river.  In order to help subdue the British-held Fort George (on the Canadian side of the river), Americans troops were placing guns across the river at Youngstown.  Drummond drew up a plan to eliminate this threat: send a column on July 25 under Lieutenant Colonel John Tucker to capture the American cannon at Youngstown.  To ensure that Jacob Brown did not reinforce Americans on the eastern side of the river, Drummond ordered Phineas Riall’s Right Division to advance against Brown to divert his attention from the main British objective.  Riall was ordered not to start a serious engagement.[13]  However, Drummond would be ready to fight against Brown “if it should be found expedient.”[14]  If this fight should occur, Riall was to “depend upon the superior discipline of the troops under your command for success over an undisciplined though confident and numerous enemy.”[15]  Indeed, the “superior” British troops would surely be put to the test by an American force that was not only “confident and numerous” but also ready to stand face-to-face with Riall’s Right Division.[16]

Another irony of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane was that both Brown’s Left Division and Riall’s Right Division advanced towards what would soon become the Lundy’s Lane battlefield in order to attract the attention of the enemy force on the other side of the Niagara River.  Just as Riall was advancing south to keep Brown on the western shore of the river, Brown was advancing to check Riall’s advance and to protect his supply base at Fort Schlosser on the east side of the river, which he thought was the goal of Tucker’s column.  Brown later wrote that Riall’s advance “left much at hazard on our side of the Niagara” and in order to protect his supply base at Fort Schlosser, Brown “conceived [that] the most effectual method of recalling him [Tucker] from this object was to put myself in motion towards Queenston” and towards Riall’s force.[17]  The first of the American forces to move north towards Queenston was Captain Nathan Towson’s Artillery Company, consisting of two 6-pounders and one 5 1/2-inch howitzer, two companies of cavalry, and Winfield Scott’s First Brigade.[18]  This column moved under Brown’s orders “to report if the enemy appeared – then to call for assistance if necessary.”[19]  By the time Scott’s advance began, Riall was also moving towards Lundy’s Lane and took position with troops under Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Pearson and Colonel Hercules Scott on top of a ridge that rose nearly fifty feet above the rest of the battlefield.  On top of this ridge ran Lundy’s Lane in a northwesterly direction.  Just east of the ridge, the lane intersected with the Portage Road.  It was on this ridge that Riall posted his forces between 5:00 and 6:00 pm.[20]  The stage was set for the bloodiest battle of the War of 1812.

For the Americans under Scott advancing north, the first indication of British troops in the vicinity came when they approached a house owned by a Mrs. Wilson, which had several horses tied up outside of the house.  As the Americans got closer and closer, “eight or ten British officers stepped, hastily, from the house and mounted their horses.”  These same Americans were then told by Mrs. Wilson what lay ahead of them: “It is General Riall with eight hundred Regulars, three hundred militia and Indians, and two pieces of artillery.”[21]  Having heard this, General Scott vowed to “immediately engage with the enemy” and indeed, he did just that.[22]  As the van of Scott’s Brigade appeared in the open plain in front of the British position, Scott saw “a line of battle drawn up in Lundy’s Lane, more extensive than that defeated at Chippewa [sic].”[23]  Scott, obedient to orders, reported the presence of the enemy but then, without orders, moved to attack it.  Scott was spoiling for a fight and he believed that he could not safely withdraw his force without risking “a hot pursuit” by the enemy; he did not want to withdraw for fear of “throwing the whole reserve…into a panic,” and, lastly, Scott believed that his troops were near invincible and could thus defeat Riall’s entire force.[24]  Once Scott began deploying his brigade, Riall believed that himself.  He assumed that directly behind Scott’s force was Brown’s entire Left Division when in reality, Scott’s Brigade was the only American infantry on the scene.  Fearing being outnumbered, Riall ordered his troops to abandon the ridge on which Lundy’s Lane ran.  However, when Gordon Drummond arrived behind British lines and saw this, he ordered all of the troops back to the top of the ridge.[25]  Drummond, now in overall command, began to place his men on the ridge and just as he was finishing his deployments, “the whole front [became] warmly and closely engaged.”[26]  These were Scott’s troops who would make the first assault against Riall’s Right Division.

westpoint.edu

Scott’s Brigade formed in line of battle and began advancing towards Riall’s position at 6:00 pm.  It had nearly 600 yards of open field to advance across and as it did, “the cannon balls, grape shot, and musket balls flew like hailstones, and yet we were not firing a gun.”[27]  The Ninth, Eleventh, and Twenty-second regiments were ordered by Scott to advance against the center of Riall’s line where “two twenty-four pounder brass field guns a little advanced in front of the centre [sic] on the summit of the hill” were positioned.[28]  This attack was severely torn up by British small arms and artillery fire.  However, one of Scott’s regiments, the Twenty-fifth United States Infantry under Major Thomas Jesup, assaulted the left end of the British line at the intersection of Lundy’s Lane and the Portage Road and succeeded in temporarily driving back the British left.[29]  During this action, “Major-General Riall, having received a severe wound, was intercepted as he was passing to the rear by a party of the enemy’s cavalry and made prisoner.”[30]  Now command of the British forces had passed fully from Riall to Drummond.  Command of the field was changing on the American side as well as Jacob Brown was arriving on the field with the rest of his army just as it was getting dark at around 9:00 pm and just as Scott’s attack was ending.[31]

The first member of Brown’s staff to reach the battlefield was Lieutenant Colonel William McRee, chief engineer of the American Left Division.[32]  Surveying the field, he determined that the ridge on which the British line sat was “the key of the position, and must be taken.”[33]  This was relayed to Brown, who agreed and ordered the 21^st Infantry of Ripley’s Brigade, which was just arriving on the field, to storm the British guns.  When Colonel James Miller, commanding the Twenty-first, was asked if he could take the ridge, he replied, “I’ll try, Sir!  Attention – the Twenty-first!”  Miller’s regiment stormed the ridge and just after 9:00 pm, three hours after the battle had begun, “the hill was completely cleared of the enemy [British]…and the battery was ours,” wrote an American soldier who fought at the battle.[34]  Unfortunately for Brown, Drummond was not yet ready to give up his guns.

Brown began to consolidate his lines on top of the ridge with the Second and Third Brigades, under Generals Ripley and Porter, respectively, following the successful assault.[35]  At the same time and on the north side of the ridge, General Drummond was rallying his troops, both those that had been forced off the hill and the rest of Riall’s Division, which was just arriving, in preparation for an assault to retake his position astride Lundy’s Lane.[36]  This lull in the fighting lasted until approximately 10:30 pm; by that time, the new moon had set and “it was quite dark” as men on both sides prepared themselves “for the terrible conflict that awaited them.”[37]

(Library of Congress)

Up to this point, the Battle of Lundy’s Lane had not been terribly savage but soon, Lundy’s Lane would make a name for itself thanks to some of the most ferocious fighting that was to be seen in North America in the first half of the nineteenth century.  The British forces advanced towards the American position until they were within “sixty paces” and for the first twenty minutes of the fight, each side poured volley after volley into each other’s ranks.[38]  At times, the two opposing lines became so close that in “the light of each successive volley they could plainly distinguish the faces of their antagonists, and even the buttons on their coats.”[39]  American forces led by Winfield Scott counterattacked and forced back the first wave of British infantry.  However, Drummond would not be defeated that easily as the British attacked again and at times, “the lines…were separated by only eight or ten paces.”[40]  This close quarters fighting became commonplace for the next few hours on top of the ridge.  Due to the savagery of the battle, command in the American Army was beginning to fall apart as both Brown and Scott received wounds that forced them to leave the fight.[41]  Eleazar Ripley took command of the Americans defending Lundy’s Lane and he did that admirably as he was seen “everywhere, urging his men to hold on.”[42]  Finally, at about midnight, the British infantry fell back for the last time on July 25, 1814.  The Battle of Lundy’s Lane, the most costly battle of the War of 1812, was over.  Of the approximately 3,638 British soldiers that fought at Lundy’s Lane, 84 were killed, 559 wounded, and 235 were either missing or captured.[43]  Overall, Drummond had lost 878 men, roughly 24%, of the men he carried into action.  Jacob Brown’s force of 2,778 men suffered 173 killed, 571 wounded, and 117 missing or captured.  Combined, these numbers totaled 860 casualties and amounted to 31% of Brown’s Division.[44]  At the end of the day, Americans had captured the ridge and several British guns positioned on top of the ridge.  In addition, “the improvement of the American troops…was eminently conspicuous” in fighting against the British regulars throughout July 25.[45]  All of this led to Lundy’s Lane being considered, from a tactical standpoint, an American victory.  However, events the next day would change everyone’s perception of who was the victor at Lundy’s Lane even though hardly any fighting occurred on July 26^th.

“While retiring from the field I saw and felt that the victory was complete on our part if proper measures were promptly adopted to secure it.”[46]  That is how Jacob Brown described the situation as he was leaving the battlefield just prior to the battle’s conclusion on the night of July 25^th.  Unfortunately for him and due to his wounding, events in the immediate aftermath of the battle had passed well beyond his control as he soon found that “proper measures were [not] promptly adopted” to secure the American victory.[47]  Command of the American Left Division had passed to Eleazar Ripley, who, quite understandably, moved the army back to the American camp behind the Chippawa River immediately following the battle due to the condition of the men.  However, by doing this, Ripley had left the prize of the British guns on the battlefield.  When Brown returned to camp on the morning of July 26^th, he ordered Ripley to go and reclaim the pieces; Ripley did not execute the order and the guns fell back into British hands without a fight.[48]  Thus, as both armies regrouped from the sheer shock and exhaustion that had come from the battle, the fighting on the Niagara frontier died away.  As a result of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane, “Brown’s plan to advance on Burlington Heights was irretrievably shattered.”[49]  Hence, the British can rightfully claim the strategic victory at Lundy’s Lane.  Several weeks later, the American invasion of the Niagara Peninsula would come to an end, as would the bloody summer of 1814, all of which saw the beginning of the end at Lundy’s Lane.

Therefore, the Battle of Lundy’s Lane was a British victory not because of the immediate results of the battle but because of the crippling effects that the ferocity of the fighting had on the American forces involved, though the British were also badly shaken by the fighting.  Throughout the battle, both sides constantly underestimated the other’s fighting prowess, discipline, and strength, which led to a very bloody and costly battle that lasted only six hours.  John Norton, who led Mohawk Indians attached to the British Army at Lundy’s Lane, described the battlefield simply as a “Blood Stained field.”[50]  Others used similar descriptions to describe just what had transpired on the western shore of the Niagara River.  United States Representative Samuel Sherwood perhaps summarized the battle and its aftermath best when he said, “the poor fellows…could not have anticipated such a dreadful slaughter as they have since awfully witnessed.”[51]  Indeed, neither side had predicted a fight at Lundy’s Lane, neither side expected much of their opponents, neither side expected the ferocity and destruction of the fight, and neither side expected just how much the Battle of Lundy’s Lane would change the Niagara Campaign of 1814.

Bibliography

Barbuto, Richard V.  Niagara 1814: America Invades Canada.  Lawrence, KS: University of

Kansas Press, 2000.

Cruikshank, Ernest.  The Battle of Lundy’s Lane 25^th July, 1814: A Historical Study.  Welland,

ON: Printed at the Tribune Office, 1893.

http://archive.org/stream/battleoflundy00cruiksha#page/16/mode/2up.

Cruikshank, Ernest, ed.  The Documentary History of the Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in

1814. 1814. Niagara Falls, ON: Printed at the Tribune Office, 1896.

http://archive.org/details/documentaryhisto01inlund.

Douglas, David Bates.  “Reminiscences of the Campaign of 1814, on the Niagara Frontier.”  The

            Historical Magazine (1873).

http://archive.org/stream/reminiscencesofc00douguoft#page/n11/mode/2up.

Graves, Donald E.  Where Right and Glory Lead!  The Battle of Lundy’s Lane, 1814.  Toronto:

Robin Brass Studio, 1997.  http://www.amazon.com/Where-Right-Glory-Battle-Lundys/dp/1896941036/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352677933&sr=8-1&keywords=where+right+and+glory+leads.

Mahon, John K.  The War of 1812.  Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1972.

Norton, John.  The Journal of Major John Norton 1816.  Edited by Carl F. Klinck and James J.

Talman.  Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1970.   http://link.library.utoronto.ca/champlain/DigObj.cfm?Idno=9_96847&lang=eng&Page=0485&Size=3&query=Blood%20AND%20Stained%20AND%20field&searchtype=Fulltext&startrow=1&Limit=All.

Scott, Winfield.  Memoirs of Lieut.-General Scott, LL.D.  New York: Sheldon & Company,

1864. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ACsOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA137.

The History of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane and Site.

http://www.thebattleoflundyslane.ca/?page_id=5.

Two Accounts From The Battle of Lundy’s Lane.

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/events/lundy_eyewit.html.

[1] John K. Mahon, The War of 1812 (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1972), 276.

[2] Richard V. Barbuto, Niagara 1814: America Invades Canada (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2000), 316.

[3] The History of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane and Site, http://www.thebattleoflundyslane.ca/?page_id=5.

[4] Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 229.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Donald E. Graves, Where Right and Glory Lead!  The Battle of Lundy’s Lane, 1814 (Toronto: Robin Brass Studio, 1997), 261-63, http://www.amazon.com/Where-Right-Glory-Battle-Lundys/dp/1896941036/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352677933&sr=8-1&keywords=where+right+and+glory+leads.

[7] Ibid., 257-58.

[8] Mahon, The War of 1812, 266.

[9] Ernest Cruikshank, The Battle of Lundy’s Lane 25^th July, 1814: A Historical Study (Welland, ON: Printed at the Tribune Office, 1893), 16, http://archive.org/stream/battleoflundy00cruiksha#page/16/mode/2up.

[10]“Major-General Jacob Brown to the Secretary of War,” Ernest Cruikshank, ed., The Documentary History of the Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814 (Niagara Falls, ON: Printed at the Tribune Office), 38, http://ia700304.us.archive.org/13/items/cihm_05281/cihm_05281.pdf.

[11] Ibid., 32.

[12] Ibid., 64.

[13] Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 206-7.

[14] “Sir Gordon Drummond to Sir Geo. Prevost,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 88.

[15] Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 207.

[16] Ibid.

[17] “Major-General Brown to the Secretary of War,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 97; Winfield Scott, Memoirs of Lieut.-General Scott, LL.D. (New York: Sheldon & Company, 1864), 137, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ACsOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA137.

[18] Graves, Where Right and Glory Lead!, 258.

[19] “Major-General Brown to the Secretary of War,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 98.

[20] Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 212-15.

[21] David Bates Douglas, “Reminiscences of the Campaign of 1814, on the Niagara Frontier,” The Historical Magazine, July 1873, 71-2, http://archive.org/stream/reminiscencesofc00douguoft#page/n11/mode/2up.

[22] Ibid., 72.

[23] Scott, Memoirs, 139.

[24] Ibid., 140-41.

[25] Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 215.

[26] “Sir Gordon Drummond to Sir Geo. Prevost,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 88.

[27] Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 215.

[28] “Sir Gordon Drummond to Sir Geo. Prevost,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 88.

[29] Scott, Memoirs, 141.

[30] “Sir Gordon Drummond to Sir Geo. Prevost,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 89.

[31] Scott, Memoirs, 141-42.

[32] Douglas, “Reminiscences,” The Historical Magazine, 72; Graves, Where Right and Glory Lead!, 257.

[33] Douglas, “Reminiscences,” The Historical Magazine, 72.

[34] Ibid., 73.

[35] “Major-General Brown to the Secretary of War,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 98-99.

[36] “Sir Gordon Drummond to Sir Geo. Prevost,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 89.

[37] Douglas, “Reminiscences,” The Historical Magazine, 74.

[38] Scott, Memoirs, 143; Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 223.

[39] Cruikshank, The Battle of Lundy’s Lane, 37-38.

[40] Scott, Memoirs, 144.

[41] Ibid., 145.

[42] Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 226.

[43] Graves, Where Right and Glory Lead!, 262; Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 229.

[44] Graves, Where Right and Glory Lead!, 258; Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 229.

[45] Douglas, “Reminiscences,” The Historical Magazine, 75.

[46] “Major-General Brown to the Secretary of War,” Cruikshank, ed., Campaign on the Niagara Frontier in 1814, 99.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid., 99-100.

[49] Barbuto, Niagara 1814, 229.

[50] John Norton, The Journal of Major John Norton 1816, ed. Carl F. Klinck and James J. Talman (Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1970), 358, http://link.library.utoronto.ca/champlain/DigObj.cfm?Idno=9_96847&lang=eng&Page=0485&Size=3&query=Blood%20AND%20Stained%20AND%20field&searchtype=Fulltext&startrow=1&Limit=All.

[51] Two Accounts From The Battle of Lundy’s Lane, http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/events/lundy_eyewit.html.

The Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770: 245 Years Later

During the dark and frigid night of March 5, 1770, a crowd of several hundred Bostonians gathered in front of the Custom House on King Street. This was not a peaceful demonstration against the King’s policies, but rather an aggressive mob that began threatening His Majesty’s soldiers occupying the city. Snowballs filled with ice were hurled through the air at the “bloody lobster backs,” and colonists swung their clubs taunting the small detachment of nine British regulars to fire their muskets. Amidst the chaos, Private Hugh Montgomery was knocked to the ground by an object thrown from the crowd. With the taunts of “Fire, damn you!” being screamed all around him, he rose to his feet and discharged his musket into the crowd. After a brief pause of astonishment at what had just occurred, the rest of the detachment opened fire. When the smoke cleared, five colonists – including an African-American and two seventeen-year-olds – were dead or mortally wounded, and another six were injured.

“The Bloody Massacre” by Paul Revere

The incident, although only one of many tumultuous events to occur during that build up to revolution in Boston, was a target for many propagandists, like Paul Revere. His famous engraving of “The Bloody Massacre” is easily recognized today.

As for the nine British soldiers who fired into the crowd, all nine would be charged and put on trial in Massachusetts. They were defended by none other than John Adams. Six of the men were acquitted, but two were charged with manslaughter due to overwhelming evidence that they had actually fired directly into the crowd.

Around nine o’clock this evening, take a moment to pause and remember the lives lost during this tragic event that continued us on the path towards revolution.

Remembering Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, 150 Years Ago Today

150 years ago today, President Abraham Lincoln rose to the East Portico of the United States Capitol to begin his second term of office. Lincoln, the first president to be elected to a second term since Andrew Jackson, stepped to the podium amidst a driving rain storm. After taking the oath of office, Lincoln uttered the famous words reproduced below. As he did, the storm stopped and the sun shined brightly on all present to witness this momentous occasion. An omen to be sure, the storm represented the bloody crucible through which the country had passed during Lincoln’s first term in office while the sun shine showed the blessings about to be bestowed upon the nation in the form of an end to the fratricidal conflict.

As Lincoln looked down upon the crowd, much had changed since March 4, 1861, when he spoke the words of his First Inaugural Address at that same spot. War had begun, it had torn the country apart, submitted its citizens to the horrors of a ruthless war, and slavery, the primary cause of this conflict, was on its knees ready to crumble, especially with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment by Congress at the end of January 1865.

We encourage you to read Lincoln’s short address and reflect on the changes brought about to every man, woman, and child, North and South, black and white, by our civil war.

Abraham Lincoln can be seen in the center of this photograph while orating his Second Inaugural Address, 150 years ago today

The differences brought about in the United States by the American Civil War from 1861-1865 are perhaps best exemplified by this image, which shows black soldiers participating in the march for Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. Black soldiers in United States uniform would have been unspeakable at the time of Lincoln’s First Inauguration.

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war–seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.