APPENDIX.
Having, in the foregoing narrative, stated, in justification of our mode of warfare in America, some of the causes which led to our adoption of the system of retaliation, I beg to subjoin two extracts from the Annual Register of the year 1814, as well as copies of public documents, which a friend has most kindly favoured me with, which fully bear me out in saying that we were in a manner compelled to adopt the system we pursued, i.e., to teach the Americans that we had the power to return with interest the inhuman mode of warfare with which they began the campaign.
“From several causes it was not to be expected that the war between Britain and America would be carried on in the most humane and honourable mode, especially by the Americans; they had not yet forgotten the war of the revolution, and by our employment of the Indians, though they set us the example, the consequences were such as might be dreaded. In their different invasions of Canada, the greatest inhumanities were exercised; especially at Sandwich, at the settlements on the Thames, at York, and at Fort George. Finding that remonstrances against this mode of conducting the war produced no effect, General Sir George Prevost at length issued a proclamation announcing a severe retaliation on the Americans, while at the same time he earnestly deprecated this mode of warfare.”—Annual Register, p. 318, Principal Occurrences, 1814.
“A proclamation issued by General Sir George Prevost, Bart., announces, after long forbearance, a severe retaliation on the Americans for their inhuman mode of warfare in their different invasions of Canada, especially for their having, in the midst of a severe Canadian winter, wantonly burnt the beautiful village of Newark, and turned out four hundred helpless women and children to perish in the snow, and through the severity of the season, without shelter, and without a remnant of property. This case is made out with the utmost distinctness against the Americans, not only in this, but in a number of other instances, at Sandwich, at the settlements on the Thames, at York, and at Fort George. General Sir George Prevost earnestly deprecates this mode of warfare; but he justly observes that ‘since it has been so long persevered in by the enemy, retaliation becomes an imperious duty.’ But he at the same time says, ‘that he will no longer pursue a system of warfare so revolting to his own feelings, and so uncongenial to the British character, unless forced to it by the future measures of the enemy.’”—Annual Register, p. 27; Principal Occurrences, 1814.
I trust that I have fully vindicated our mode of warfare in America, by showing that we were driven to it by the great inhumanities so frequently committed by the enemy, and when forbearance and remonstrance failed, nothing was left but to teach them that when goaded beyond endurance—four hundred helpless women and children turned out to perish in the frost and snow of a severe Canadian winter from the village of Newark, besides wanton barbarities committed in various other places—the British lion was at length aroused from his slumber, and that the fires which the Americans had lit in other places, reached the public works of their capital—Washington.
Copies of Correspondence.
“Head-quarters, British Troops,
“Bank of the St. Lawrence,
“14th Nov., 1813.“Sir,—
“The object of the present communication, which is made by desire of the officers in command of the British forces in this neighbourhood, is, in the first instance, to claim as prisoners two American officers who were taken on the morning of the 11th, previous to the action, and deserted to their own shore while on the way to Prescott.
“I enclose a copy of their paroles.
“William Gilkinson, Esq., of Prescott, is the bearer of this flag, and I am instructed to request that you will facilitate his passage to the Commanding General of the United States’ Army, to whom he is desirous of making a representation on the subject of the plunder and destruction of his property by the American troops in this neighbourhood. And on this subject I am instructed to protest in the most solemn manner against that system of rapine and plunder of the property of the peaceful and unoffending inhabitants which has marked the progress of the American army during its short continuance in this province; and I am further to entreat that his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief of the United States’ Army will allow no consideration arising out of the circumstances of the disparity of rank of the British officer by whom he is so called upon, to restrain his Excellency from immediately disavowing this system so disgraceful to a civilized army, and affording every fair indemnity to the individual sufferers; or that he will, by an open avowal that the system complained of is an authorized one, leave it in the option of the general officer (hourly expected to assume the command of the powerful and rapidly increasing British force in this neighbourhood), to employ it in such acts of just retaliation upon the persons and property of the inhabitants of the right bank of the St. Lawrence as he may think fit, as commensurate with the treatment of the inhabitants on this side.
“I have the honour to be, Sir, very respectfully,
“Your most obedient humble servant,
“(Signed) T. HARVEY, Lieut.-Col.,
“D.C.G. to the British Forces
“in the Canadas.”
“Head Quarters, Montreal,
“2nd June, 1814.“Sir,—
“I have the honour to transmit to you a copy of a letter which I have written to Lieut.-General Drummond, in consequence of the late disgraceful conduct of the American troops in the wanton destruction of private property on the north shores of Lake Erie, in order that if the war with the United States continues, you may, should you judge it advisable, assist in inflicting that measure of retaliation which shall deter the enemy from a repetition of similar outrages.
“I have, &c.,
“(Signed) GEORGE PREVOST,
“Commander of the Forces.“To Vice-Admiral the Honourable
“Sir A. Cochrane, K.B., &c., &c.”