Invading and Plundering

The first major invasion of Upper Canada occurred in the Western District, where an initial successful venture from Detroit quickly deteriorated into a retreat and subsequent surrender, damaging the American war strategy from its start. General William Hull’s brief campaign in the west was hampered from the beginning by communication issues. Notice of the declaration of war reached the British Major-General Isaac Brock through commercial communication two days before his American counterparts on the other side received their own official orders. With a slight advantage in timing, the British were able to capture a small vessel with Hull’s baggage and correspondence before he even knew they were at war. Although Hull was able to cross the Detroit River and occupy the town of Sandwich for a few weeks, the capture of his plans limited the element of surprise, allowing Brock to prepare and send reinforcements from Niagara.

The British were also able to make their slight timing advantage productive by capturing the most northern American outpost at Fort Michilimackinac. The commander positioned a cannon on a hilltop overlooking the fort and then sent a messenger with a declaration of war and terms of surrender.¹²⁶ When he received word that the northern fort had been captured, Hull became concerned that “a large Indian and Canadian force may be expected from Mackinack.”¹²⁷ Fearing an attack from the north and reinforcements arriving from Niagara, Hull abandoned his invasion plan and retreated to Detroit, where he was soon surrounded and forced to surrender to the combined forces led by Brock and native chief Tecumseh. The commercial couriers that provided advance notice of the war, even by a few days, had given the British forces enough advantage to bolster their defenses, send orders out to more remote positions, and claim the first victories of the war. Hull’s invasion of the Western District failed to accomplish any strategic goals and increased pressure on the officers responsible for the Niagara campaign.

The first failed campaign of the war also raised anti-American sentiment due to looting in the Western District. Although many American commanders began the war with hope that the settlers of the new province would view the invaders as a liberating force and join in rebellion against the British, the plundering of civilian homes and farms quickly turned sympathy to apathy or resistance. When Hull crossed the Detroit River, he issued a proclamation that he hoped would encourage cooperation: “To the peaceful unoffending inhabitant, It brings neither danger nor difficulty I come to find enemies not to make them, I come to protect not to injure you.”¹²⁸ His promises were intended to encourage militia to refrain from fighting and were initially effective, convincing about half of the British militia to abandon their posts and return home.¹²⁹ He also hoped to dissuade the native warriors allied with Britain by promising that their land would be untouched if they remained neutral, a tactic that was also somewhat successful and reduced the number of warriors from Upper Canada who joined the British counter-offensive.

Hull might have been able to capitalize on his success had he not allowed and perhaps encouraged his men to plunder the homes and farms around their temporary fortification in Sandwich.¹³⁰ Francois Baby was one of the more prominent residents of Sandwich and was acquainted with the Americans who “encamped on his farm, taking possession of his dwelling and out Houses, destroying his Orchards & fences and in every manner, to all appearance, purposely injured the premises.” Apparently punishing Baby for siding with the British at Amherstburg, the soldiers “also plundered and carried off with them, on recrossing the Detroit, his moveable property, even that which he had concealed in several private houses at some distance from his residence.”¹³¹ The inhabitants of the Western District might have given consideration to the promises that Hull made but they were also skeptical of the invaders and expected to suffer looting or violence, especially if they were known to have association with the British army. An American officer was later reported to say, “Nearly all the inhabitants had left when we crossed over and the few that remained had removed all their best property to the woods and swamps.”¹³² When inhabitants’ homes were looted and their fears justified, the inhabitants of the Western District who might have initially been receptive to the American invasion became disenchanted and more supportive of British defense of the province. The failure of the first attempted invasion of Upper Canada not only damaged the American war strategy but set a precedent of looting that persisted in each invasion and occupation that followed.

An American raid on York, the new capital of the province, further confirmed that inhabitants of Upper Canada should expect the invaders to step heavily around their homes and farms. In April 1813, a fleet from Sacket’s Harbor at the eastern end of Lake Ontario set out to assault York and capture a newly constructed ship. The outnumbered British regulars retreated to Kingston, setting fire to the partially finished ship and the powder stores, which exploded and killed over 200 American soldiers. Over the next two days, while the local officials and American officers negotiated the articles of capitulation, American soldiers looted and set fire to the government buildings.¹³³ The British army would later use the burnings at York (and Newark) as justification for setting fire to public buildings in Washington, D.C. in 1814. While no private homes were burned during the occupation of York, these events further established the image of American soldiers disobeying orders, setting fires to enemy buildings and supplies, and threatening civilians.

The inhabitants of York who were left to deal with the aftermath of the explosion also suffered the plundering of their personal property, which became a common occurrence in every contested territory during the war. Soldiers stole from Elizabeth Andrews all her clothing and some silver dishes, estimated in value at £25.¹³⁴ Mary Marshall, who was employed as the housekeeper at Elmsley House where the Executive Council of Upper Canada kept offices, witnessed the plundering of apparel, bedding, utensils, and silver spoons, medals, and watches amounting to £56. She was fortunate to know personally many of the men who later served on the board of commissioners, as they recommended her claim for approval because they were “present at York when the enemy landed” and “fully satisfied of the fairness of the statement.”¹³⁵ Marshall later married widower Patrick Hartney, who was injured in the explosion and also suffered losses when American soldiers broke into his home to steal bedding, curtains, a stove, clothes, and furniture.¹³⁶ One merchant caught soldiers looting his storehouse, but when he approached an American officer to seek redress, he was told that “there was ammunition in his store which was always considered lawful booty, whether private property or not.”¹³⁷ The fact that he was robbed of many other goods did not seem to matter. In total, about twenty-three homes and businesses were looted during the two days of enemy occupation in York, in violation of the articles of capitulation that had been signed by both sides. When confronted with the reports of plundering, American General Henry Dearborn stated that he had “issued the strictest orders to the contrary” but to those around him “it was evident that the great degree of insubordination that prevailed among his troops rendered such orders of no effect.”¹³⁸

Although most of the looting occurred in homes that had been abandoned during the fighting, some residents who remained were also threatened with acts of violence while their homes were plundered. Angelique Givens had been left with her children at their home in Pine Grove, about a mile north of the garrison. Her husband James was a militia officer and Indian Department official, so he had left when the British force retreated. During the occupation, William Dummer Powell came upon Givens “in great distress having been driven from her home by a Party of Plunderers who had threatened her Life.”¹³⁹ He also observed one of the soldiers being captured when the perpetrator returned to the house a second time and was found in possession of a stolen silver cup and a mirror. Powell escorted Givens to the American headquarters to seek protection, but Dearborn informed them that “it was not in his Power to protect her in her own House & recommended strongly that she would not return to it.”¹⁴⁰ Givens also sought out Reverend John Strachan, who had been working to prevent looting, but their appeal to Dearborn was again rebuffed with the excuse that he could not “guarantee protection to any persons connected with the Indians.”¹⁴¹ Rather than admit that he could not keep control of the soldiers under his command, Dearborn blamed the victims of looting for their connections with the British military, government, or native allies. Although many Americans believed that the inhabitants of Upper Canada would welcome them as liberators, the American force that departed York left behind a town full of inhabitants embittered by plundering and burning who might otherwise have harbored sympathy for Republican ideals.