Part 10

Nor will the assertion, that Sir George Prevost disregarded the supposed signal of co-operation, and neglected to attack the fort according to his promise, be more difficult to disprove. No such signal was in fact ever arranged, nor was any such promise ever given. The destruction of the enemy's fleet being the primary object of the expedition, and until that was effected, the ulterior operations not being practicable, Sir George Prevost resolved not to assault the fort until he was satisfied that our squadron was actually proceeding to attack the enemy. Of the result of the action when the fleets were once engaged, neither the Commander of the forces, nor any one in our army allowed themselves to entertain a single doubt. That Sir George Prevost intended to assault the enemy's works simultaneously, or nearly so, with the commencement of the naval action, and that Captain Downie was aware of that determination, appears from the correspondence between those officers. But that Captain Downie should have gathered from these communications any thing like a promise or agreement on the part of the Commander of the forces to support, assist, or co-operate with him during the naval engagement, is quite impossible. Sir George Prevost had satisfied himself by personal observation, and by the most accurate intelligence, that the American fleet was anchored out of range of the batteries, and he must therefore have known that it was out of his power to offer any support to Captain Downie. To have held forth to that officer any hope or promise of assistance was consequently out of the question. It was of the first importance, with a view to the success of Sir George Prevost's operations, that the fleet should be engaged at the same time, or before the fort was assaulted, but of no consequence whatever to Captain Downie, that the fort should be attacked simultaneously with the naval force. Sir George Prevost, therefore, in his communications with the naval Commander, and particularly in his letter of the 10th, mentioned his intention of making nearly a simultaneous attack, _as part of his own plan of operations_, with which it was necessary that Captain Downie should be acquainted. It is highly probable, that Captain Downie inferred from this communication, that the attack on the fort which Sir George Prevost had been in readiness to make on the morning of the 10th, would be made at the time when the fleets should engage, but there is not the _slightest_ ground for believing that this expectation led him to place any reliance upon the land attack, as a co-operation in support of the naval force, or that it induced him to hasten into action, at a time when he felt unequal to it, or unprepared for the contest. Had he considered the expressions used by Sir George Prevost, in his letter of the 10th, as importing an agreement to assist him by a simultaneous attack on shore, he would certainly have answered that communication, and have availed himself of the services of Captain Watson, who was left with him for that purpose, to express to the Commander of the forces his reliance on the promised aid, and his assurance that it was the state of the wind alone, which had prevented him from appearing with the fleet on the morning of the 10th, as he had intended. At the time when this letter was written by the Commander of the forces, he was ignorant of the causes which had delayed the fleet, and he was ignorant, likewise, of Captain Downie's further intentions, with regard to the time when he would be prepared to attack the enemy's squadron. Had Captain Downie, therefore, relied, in the slightest degree, on the co-operation of the land forces, he would have informed Sir George Prevost of the exact time when he contemplated an engagement, that the troops on shore might be prepared to second his efforts. No reply, however, was despatched by him to the Commander of the forces, who thus remained in uncertainty with regard to the actual state and condition of the squadron, and the intentions of its commander. Captain Watson, whose directions were to proceed immediately to head-quarters, with intelligence of the sailing of the squadron, should not Captain Downie have previously despatched him, did not arrive until after the fleet had made its appearance. It has, indeed, been asserted, by the Quarterly Reviewer, that the scaling of the guns of our squadron was to be the signal for the advance of the columns of attack. This misstatement appears to have arisen out of the evidence which was given before the Court-Martial on Captain Pring; for in no other place is any allusion to such a fact to be discovered. The error of that statement, which, without doubt, was unintentional, is manifest. The signal in question is said to have been concerted with Major Coore on the 10th, when, in fact, no interview or communication whatever took place between him and Captain Downie on that day; and that no such signal was mentioned to the former on the 8th, the day on which he _did_ see Captain Downie, is a fact to which the Major (now Colonel Coore) is ready to bear witness. In all probability Captain Watson, who was with Captain Downie on the 10th, was the person who was mistaken for Major Coore, and to him Captain Downie might have communicated his intention of scaling his guns, previous to rounding Cumberland Head, in order to announce to the Commander of the forces the approach of the squadron. Whatever may have been the nature of Captain Downie's communication by Captain Watson, it is certain that it never reached Sir George Prevost.

It has thus been shewn, that there was not even an understanding between Sir George Prevost and Captain Downie, that the attack by land and sea should take place simultaneously, for the purpose of affording protection or support to our squadron, much less that there existed any "solemn agreement" to that effect. It must also be evident, from the previous statement, that the attack on shore did actually take place at the commencement of the naval action, and that the sudden and unexpected termination of the latter engagement alone prevented the prosecution of the military operations. Orders, as we have already shewn, had been given by Sir George Prevost, on the 9th, for the troops to hold themselves in readiness for the attack of the enemy's works on the morning of the 10th, and those orders were accompanied, as every military man knows, and as the Reviewer[87] himself must have known, is usual, by an order _to cook_, when the time will admit.[88] It has also been shewn, that early on the morning of the 11th, and before the fleet was in sight, or the scaling of their guns was heard, similar orders were circulated for the troops to hold themselves in readiness for the attack, and so well prepared were the forces on shore to make the attack, that almost at the same moment when the Confiance began to engage the enemy, the troops were in motion for the assault. Our batteries, as mentioned above, opened on the enemy's works some time before the commencement of the naval action on the part of the Confiance. Until confidently assured that the fleets would engage (and many circumstances might have intervened to prevent it even after the appearance of our squadron) Sir George Prevost felt that it would be highly imprudent in him to commence the attack; but the moment he learned that Captain Downie was actually in contact with the enemy, the troops were immediately ordered to take their position for the assault.

Although our naval official accounts of the transaction state the engagement to have lasted for two hours and a half, that is from eight o'clock in the morning until half-past ten, when the Confiance struck, the American naval account, which is corroborated by the testimony of all who witnessed the action from the shore, represents the engagement to have terminated in about an hour and a half. The American account also corresponds with the statements of our officers on shore, that our fleet did not round Cumberland Head until between eight and nine o'clock, before which time all the statements of persons on shore agree in admitting that the action did not begin on the part of our fleet. With regard to the period when the engagement terminated, all the accounts appear to coincide. It has already been shewn, that notwithstanding the unfortunate mistake of the attacking columns taking a wrong route, they had at that very period forced the ford of the Saranac, and were then in the vicinity of the enemy's works, and prepared to make an instant assault, and that the unexpected result of the naval action was the sole cause which induced Sir George Prevost to countermand that assault. It now remains to explain more fully the reasons of the Commander of the forces for giving those orders, which will afford an answer to the last charge brought against him.

It has been often and confidently asserted, that both the enemy's squadron and our own were within reach, of the guns of the works. It is not, therefore, surprising that an unfavourable impression should have been made upon the minds of many persons with regard to the policy of not persevering in an attack, which might, under such circumstances, have led to the recovery of our own fleet, or the destruction of that of the enemy. The fact of the relative situation of the two squadrons and of the enemy's works, has, like most of the other facts connected with this expedition, been grossly misrepresented. Had an opportunity been offered by a public investigation of the transaction, it could and would have been satisfactorily proved, that neither of the fleets was within the range of the enemy's guns from any part of their works, and that their own squadron was anchored more than a mile and a half from the shore.

The grounds of the Reviewer's statement upon this subject it is impossible to ascertain; but, in opposition to what he affirms[89] on the testimony of Captain Pring, and "_numerous_ other _eye-witnesses_" it can be proved by testimony from on board the Confiance, as well as by officers without number on shore, that she was taken possession of within half an hour after she struck; and it can also be proved, in opposition to the decided opinion of the number of officers, who are stated to have visited Plattsburg after the peace, that the anchorage of the American squadron was not within range of the forts.

The evidence of the greater part of the General Officers accompanying the expedition to Plattsburg, who viewed the naval action; of the commanding officer, and others of the Artillery; of naval men on board of our fleet, and of various other persons on shore, could and would have been produced upon the trial of the question, had it taken place, in proof of the fact as here stated. But independently of all opinion upon the subject, is it probable or credible that the American naval Commander would have placed his squadron in such a situation, that by possibility they could be annoyed or injured from works which he saw it was the evident intention of Sir George Prevost to attack, and which he must have felt convinced would in such a case have fallen? That he was aware of the danger to which his squadron was exposed by its vicinity to the forts, appears from the circumstance before adverted to, of his having moved further into the Bay from the station which he occupied on the 6th, the day of the arrival of our troops before Plattsburg. The position which the American Commander thus took, was one in which, according to his judgment, he could not have been annoyed by the fall of the works on shore, an event for which he was prepared. This opinion was expressed in the presence of a British officer who had been made prisoner during the naval action. The same opinion was entertained by Captain Henley, of the American brig, Eagle, who had himself reconnoitred the position in which the fleet was anchored, and which upon his report was selected by the American Commander, because it was evidently out of the range of the guns from the shore. If any thing more were wanting in confirmation of this fact, it will be amply supplied by the opinions of the two officers most capable of forming a correct judgment on the subject. The following letters of Commodore Macdonough and General Macomb, the American Naval and Military Commanders, will, it is apprehended, set the question at rest in the mind of every unprejudiced person.

"_Portsmouth, New Hampshire, July 3, 1815._

"Dear Sir,

Your letter of the 26th ult. came to hand yesterday; the letter you addressed to me at Washington has not been received, or it assuredly should have been attended to.

In reply to yours of the 26th ult. it is my opinion that our squadron was anchored one mile and a half from the batteries at Plattsburg, during the contest between it and the British squadron on the 11th September, 1814.

I am, with much respect,

Your obedient servant, (Signed) J. MACDONOUGH."

"_Cadwr. Colden, Esq._"

* * * * *

"_City of New York, June 15, 1815._

"Sir,

I should have replied earlier to your letter of the 26th ultimo, had it not been mislaid amidst a mass of communications on the subject of the army.

With respect to the distance of the American squadron from the batteries at Plattsburg, I will state that it is my decided opinion that the squadron was moored beyond the effectual range of the batteries, and this I know from a fruitless attempt made to elevate our guns so as to bear on the British squadron during the action of the 11th of September last. No guns, however, were fired, all being convinced that the vessels were beyond their reach. This opinion was strengthened by observations on the actual range of the guns of the Confiance--her heaviest metal falling several hundred yards short of the shore when closely engaged with our vessels.

With a hope that this reply will be satisfactory, I subscribe myself,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

(Signed) ALEX. MACOMB."

"_Cadwr. R. Colden, Esq._"

* * * * *

"_New York, August 1, 1815._

"Sir,

In reply to your letter of the 30th ult. asking the distance of the American squadron from the batteries of Plattsburg, on the 11th day of September, 1814, while engaged with the British squadron, I will state that it is my decided opinion that the American squadron was upwards of three thousand yards distant from the batteries, being confirmed in that belief from observations made on the actual range of the heaviest guns of the British ship, Confiance, when fired towards the batteries, the balls falling short upwards of five hundred yards.

With respectful consideration,

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant, (Signed) ALEX. MACOMB."

"_To Cadwr. R. Colden, Esq._"

If therefore our squadron could not have been recovered, or that of the enemy annoyed or injured by the capture of their works on shore, it may be asked, what advantages could have resulted from persevering in the attack? It has been already shewn that the primary object of this expedition was the destruction of the enemy's flotilla on the Lake. Had that object been accomplished, Plattsburg might have been occupied by our troops, and from thence, with the assistance of our squadron, they might have been transported to other parts of the Lake for the further annoyance of the enemy. The loss of our squadron, however, immediately rendered all these important operations impracticable. Without the assistance of a fleet, nothing beyond the occupation of Plattsburg could have been accomplished. That Plattsburg would have fallen, neither the Commander of the forces, nor a man under him, could have entertained a doubt. The enemy were indeed strongly entrenched, and under works, which afforded complete shelter to several thousand expert marksmen, from whose fire our troops must have suffered most severely; but granting, that after a considerable loss, we had carried the enemy's works, what adequate advantages should we have gained? To retain Plattsburg was not possible without the assistance of a fleet, which would have been necessary to the provisioning of our army; a retreat, therefore, after destroying all we could not carry away, would have been indispensable. Such was, however, the state of the season and of the weather, that 24 hours delay in retiring with our troops to Canada, would not only have made such a measure dangerous, from the advance of the enemy in every direction, but would have rendered the conveyance of our ordnance and stores exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. The militia of the state of New York and Vermont were turning out, and rapidly increasing in numbers; and although in the open field our troops would justly have despised them, they would have proved most formidable in the woods, and hanging upon the flank and rear of a retreating army. Sir George Prevost knew that he had only to give the word, and that his gallant troops would accomplish all his wishes,[90] but he knew at the same time how useless the acquisition would be, and how costly the sacrifice at which it was probable it would be made. He was also bound to bear in mind the instructions of His Majesty's Government, with regard to the committal of the force under him, so necessary for the preservation of the Provinces entrusted to his care.

He therefore wisely determined to retreat, whilst retreat was practicable, and whilst it could be effected with the least possible loss. The order was accordingly given for that purpose, and such was the energy and promptitude of the execution, that the retreat was conducted without the smallest molestation from the enemy, who, in fact, were not aware of it until it was nearly completed. Notwithstanding the almost impassable state of the roads, from the rains which were falling, not a gun was left behind; and, although the subject has been much exaggerated, yet in fact only a very small quantity of provisions and stores, together with _fifteen_ wounded men in hospital, was left to the enemy. Of deserters, the utmost amount was under 300 men, which was the consequence, not as has been falsely asserted, of the _retreat_,[91] but of the _advance_, many of them having deserted upon our entry, and as we afterwards penetrated into the American territory; a consequence which almost invariably attended every attack upon their frontier, and was most strongly manifested in Colonel Scott's expedition, in December, 1813, against part of General Wilkinson's army, when, out of a force of not more than 500 men, he lost upwards of 90 by desertion.

The exaggerated account of this retreat having induced his Majesty's government to call upon Sir George Prevost for a more particular detail of the losses attending it, it appears, by Sir George Prevost's reply to Lord Bathurst's despatch on the subject, together with the documents accompanying it, that the whole loss in killed, wounded, prisoners, and deserters, from the time of the army entering the American territory, until it was withdrawn, did not amount to 500 men. This affords a complete answer to one of the Reviewer's concluding mis-statements, that when Sir George Prevost wrote the despatch from Montreal, though dated at Plattsburg,[92] "he knew that the desertion of 800 men had attended his shameful defeat."

The unfortunate loss of our fleet, and the consequent withdrawing of our troops from the American territory, afforded an opportunity to the party opposed to Sir George Prevost's civil administration in Canada, of which they immediately and eagerly availed themselves, of circulating the most unfounded statements, and the most exaggerated accounts, with respect to both those transactions. These were industriously transmitted to England by a private ship belonging to one of Sir George Prevost's most violent opponents, and upon their arrival, and in the absence of any official accounts of the transactions to which they referred, they created a general belief that the disastrous result of the naval action had been occasioned by a want of co-operation from the shore; that the retreat had been conducted in a precipitate and disgraceful manner; that a severe loss of men, guns, stores, and provisions, had been the consequence of it; and that the whole army was indignant at the conduct of their commander. The arrival of Sir George Prevost's despatches, together with the explanations afforded, as well by them as by the person to whom they had been given in charge, could not fail to undeceive His Majesty's Government on this subject, and to convince them of the grossness of the misrepresentations which had gone forth. Had not some expressions in Sir James Yeo's letter, accompanying the account of the naval action, been construed into charges against Sir George Prevost, which, in justice to him, as well as to the public, it was deemed proper to call upon him to answer, there cannot be a doubt but that the further management of the war in the Canadas would still have been entrusted to the Commander who had hitherto so successfully conducted it. Even if the subsequent conduct of Sir James Yeo did not afford ample proof of the fact, there is not wanting other evidence to shew that the letter in question was written by him under the irritation of the moment, and in consequence of Captain Pring's communication to him of the result of the naval action, but without any intention of making a charge against Sir George Prevost, and without the most distant idea that it could be so construed. Sir James Yeo must have possessed too honourable a mind to become a guest in Sir George Prevost's family, and to partake of his attention and hospitality, had he for a moment supposed that his public letter, on the subject of the naval action at Plattsburg, could have been construed into a formal accusation. Had he really meant it as such, he would most undoubtedly, in a manly and open manner, have communicated the proceeding he had adopted to the party accused; and, under such circumstances, would, no less certainly, have refused the kindness and attention of the person of whom he had publicly expressed so unfavourable an opinion. That this must have been the case may further be inferred, from the circumstance that, although Sir George Prevost was recalled to answer the charges, amounting to three in number, supposed to be contained in Sir James Yeo's letter, it was not until more than four months after both these officers arrived in England, that the precise charges upon which he was to take his trial, were officially communicated to him, and which charges differed materially from those in Sir James Yeo's letter. Whether, under these circumstances, Sir James Yeo would have supported the charges, had the investigation taken place, cannot now be determined; but a confident appeal may be made to the intelligent reader, whether, upon the facts disclosed in these pages being made known, such an attempt must not have utterly failed.