Staying and Working Together

Elizabeth Skinner’s story includes an example of another important part of women’s efforts that built on existing community connections to create living conditions more suitable for wartime survival. When faced with looting and destruction, women worked and sheltered together with other women in similar circumstances to combine and share resources. They also sought assistance from anyone left in the community who could help them preserve their property and families. At the outset of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane, Martha Cook was with Skinner at her home, but they fled to avoid the violence. When the fighting was over, they returned to assess the extent of losses and damage. It is possible that Cook chose to stay with Skinner because she had previously suffered from looting despite her efforts to prevent it. According to her own war loss claim, Cook had transported several possessions to the home Elizabeth Lundy, perhaps hoping they would be safer there. Following the retreat of the British during the Battle of Chippewa, however, Lundy’s home was plundered by “a number of American Indians” who took away “Bedding and Household furniture which had been deposited there for safety,” along with several trunks, blankets, and a “large Looking Glass.”206 Elizabeth Lundy was present during the looting but admitted in her statement that she “did not notice the other articles that were taken” because she was “intimidated while the Indians were there.”207 The threat of her own home being looting had caused Cook to trust in the security of her neighbors but when they too were plundered, she may have been desperate to find shelter and comfort wherever she could. Unfortunately, tragedy followed and Cook once more faced the threat of displacement and loss.

Women who lived with the constant threat of invasion and plundering, and who faced the additional work left behind by absent male family members, often chose to live together, combining and sharing their meager resources with one another to improve their chances of surviving the war. As mentioned in the previous module, Martha Rorbach left “her own House, being plundered of nearly all that was in it,” and because her husband was “absent with the Army, and Mr Alexander a prisoner she went to live with Mrs Alexander.”208 As a neighbor of the Alexanders, Rorbach was familiar with their home and business, mentioning that she witnessed their receipt of “a large assortment of Dry Goods and Groceries” that were later stolen along with household goods, clothing, bedding, and supplies.209 Staying together was a tactic that had potential to help both women preserve their homes and families, but even when they were unable to prevent looting they were still able to serve as witnesses for one another’s losses in later claims for compensation.

Women in Newark who joined their households together to share resources and support were not only at risk of looting but also suffered together when the town was burned in December 1813. During the occupation of the town, Elizabeth Campbell and her children moved into the home of Charlotte Dickson, whose husband William was imprisoned at Greenbush, New York. Campbell moved much of her property to the Dickson estates with the assistance of Benjamin Holmes, who was “personally present and assisted in moving the articles [that] were lodged in the Brick house of the Honble. William Dickson when it was burnt.”210 It is possible that the two women had a mutually agreeable arrangement in which the Dickson home provided a safer place to live for both families while Elizabeth helped Charlotte with the household and her health. According to local history, “when the town was burnt, [Charlotte] was ill in bed, and was carried out; she lay on the snow watching the destruction of the house.”211 If Charlotte Dickson had chronic health issues that limited her capacity to manage her household and care for her children, it is possible that Campbell offered to help in exchange for increased security for her family and property. Unfortunately, the potential benefits that compelled the two women to share resources and living quarters were lost when the burning of Newark forced them out into the cold December night.

Women in Niagara not only worked together to survive the losses and displacement they faced but also sought aid from anyone who remained in the district after so many others retreated with the army, were arrested and sent to prisons in the United States, or sought refuge in other districts. Benjamin Holmes, a servant employed by the Dicksons, was able to assist Elizabeth Campbell in moving her family into Charlotte’s home. Surviving records do not indicate why Holmes was allowed to stay in Newark while William Dickson, a merchant and lawyer with no military experience, was sent to prison. The imprisonment of men in Niagara was inconsistent and was likely driven in part by the personal grudges of Joseph Willcocks and his men. A similar situation affected Susannah Alexander, whose husband Hugh was imprisoned as an officer in the 3rd Lincoln Militia (named for Lincoln County in the Niagara District). When Alexander encountered Edward Hunt during her journey to seek refuge away from the fighting and plundering, she asked whether he would provide protection against looting if he remained in Stamford. Hunt may have been allowed to remain free because he was a farmer who could provide food for the occupying army, but he risked arrest if the enemy found out that he had served in the Loyalist militia during the Revolution. In the end, Hunt was unable to prevent the Alexanders’ home and stores from being looted, but the incident suggests that women like Susannah Alexander were willing to seek and accept any available assistance in their attempt to survive and protect their property.

The close physical proximity of battlefields to civilian homes also led to circumstances in which some women witnessed intense battles, provided aid to soldiers, or even became involved in the fighting. Most of these stories are anecdotal but provide insight into situations that were prevalent throughout the district. The Battle of Fort George was the first major engagement in Niagara that took place in a populated area, bringing violence and death to the doorsteps of the civilian inhabitants. During the desperate British defense, Mrs. Henry “was very active in assisting the troops […] giving them refreshments during the battle” and was described as “quite a heroine, not to be frightened.”212 The Henry family lived at the lighthouse in Newark and an anecdote passed down by her daughter, Elizabeth Quade, shows how close they were to the action. Quade recalled that, “she and several other children were playing in a wheelbarrow near the lighthouse when a cannon ball struck about two feet from them. They then ran behind the lighthouse and in another moment another ball struck the wheelbarrow they had just left, smashing it to atoms.”213 The Henrys were fortunate that the lighthouse was considered useful to both British and American vessels on Lake Ontario and was thus spared during the burning of Newark later that year.

The rapid advance of the American troops caused chaos and confusion throughout the British forces and civilians living in the area, including women who were concerned about relatives serving in the military and the safety of their own families. During the British retreat, Captain William Hamilton Merritt of the Niagara Light Dragoons

passed through by old Mr. Butler’s, Ball’s and Servos’s. At those places the ladies and non-combatants of the town had retired, likewise all the wounded that could get away. It was really distressing to hear the cries of the women. I was stopped every few yards to satisfy their enquiries as to the safety of some husband, father, brother or son. The women had collected in groups in every public place through the country.214

The retreat forced many Niagara militiamen to choose between taking the risk of returning to their homes in occupied areas—where they may have been paroled and allowed to stay or arrested and sent to prison—or to follow the army and leave their families to fend for themselves. Merritt observed, “Every other family in parting with their relatives gave them up for lost. This neighborhood retreated with the army almost to a man.”215 The women and children who remained had to cope with both the loss or departure of family members and the unknown circumstances that would result from enemy occupation. While the Americans held Fort George, numerous skirmishes occurred in the fields close enough to homes that “the ladies [looked] on from the windows.”216 In one engagement near Butler’s Farm, “John Lawe, a boy of thirteen years,” was “Animated by a fierce passion for revenge” and “seized a musket when the firing began and joined the Indians. He continued to load and fire in the most fearless manner until the skirmish had nearly ended, when his mother appeared and forcibly removed him.”217 Eliza Lawe had been caring for her family alone since her husband George had been wounded during the Battle of Fort George, then paroled to recovery at home, and finally imprisoned during McClure’s infamous roundup of potential militia. The concern for her son’s safety that drove Lawe to drag him from the battle was likely matched by her anger toward him at having risked his life while they were coping with so many other losses.

Living in contested territory meant women who supported the British were sometimes forced into physical action and harm’s way to help defend the district, even when local men refused to get involved. When Lieutenant James FitzGibbon of the 49th Regiment was scouting the village of Lundy’s Lane, Jane Kerby alerted him that the enemy occupied some nearby houses and encouraged him to leave. FitzGibbon ignored her advice and was caught in an unlikely situation. When two American soldiers tried to aim their muskets at him, he somehow managed to grasp each firearm and “held the weapons of both in such a position that neither of them could fire with effect.”218 FitzGibbon called out to two men nearby for assistance, “but they would not interfere; poor Mrs. Kirby apparently distracted, used all her influence, but in vain.”219 When one of the Americans realized that he could not free his musket, he “drew [FitzGibbon’s] sword out of its scabbard with his left hand,” but was unable to attack because another local woman, Sarah DeFields, “seized the uplifted arm and wrested the sword from his grasp.”220 Eventually, an elderly man and young boy also entered the struggle and together the entire group managed to overwhelm the Americans and FitzGibbon made his escape with the two prisoners. No extant accounts report whether the Americans, who controlled much of the district, retaliated against the women and men who helped the British officer escape.

Living under enemy occupation also meant that some inhabitants of Niagara cooperated with the Americans, either because they sympathized with the invaders and considered them liberators or else because they had little choice to survive. Historian Alan Taylor writes, “Preferring profits to patriotism, many common people readily sold farm produce to the invaders.”221 Profits may have motivated some farmers who had the option of selling their crops to the Americans, but other inhabitants were given few options when their usual means of supporting their families were lost. Little evidence survives of cases in which women cooperated with occupation forces, but this may be explained by the strong negative views of such behavior, which would have made many women reluctant to admit that they worked with the enemy to survive.

One surviving anecdote from the town of Newark, however, suggests that some women were forced to cooperate with the enemy to improve their family’s access to food and chances of survival. The story was passed down from Sarah Cassady’s daughter Jane Whitten to her own daughter Sarah Catherine Follett who related the tale to local historian Janet Carnochan sometime in the late nineteenth century. On the day of the invasion of Newark, Sarah Cassady walked with her children to a local farm seeking refuge, her daughter Jane carrying her brother on her back. After sheltering in the barn overnight, Cassady returned to find her house “occupied by American officers. She had left bread, recently baked, in the home, and they offered to let her return on condition that she would bake for them, they supplying one hundred pounds of flour and she giving one hundred pounds of bread, and to have the additional loaves for herself.”222 According to Carnochan, Cassady continued to bake bread for the Americans throughout the summer and fed her children with the leftovers.

The oral tradition through which this story was passed down is likely the only way in which any mention of her cooperation with American soldiers could have survived. Other women living in Newark likely were aware of Cassady’s actions but perhaps kept that information private to protect one of their own. When the British later retook the region, the risk of prosecution hung over any inhabitants who had helped the enemy, even if their motive was to avoid starvation. Knowledge of her cooperation with the Americans would also have jeopardized any chance of receiving aid from the LPS or recouping the losses for which Cassady and her husband claimed compensation after the war.223 However, Sarah Cassady received a relief payment from the LPS for £6/5s and the board approved the Cassady’s claim. The respective directors and commissioners of the two boards may have been unaware of Sarah’s activities during the occupation. They may also have recognized that loyalty to the Crown was sometimes less important than immediate survival, even if the circumstances required temporary cooperation with the enemy. For Sarah Cassady, protecting her family required actions that could have had dire consequences and were better left unmentioned, especially in the years following the war, and meant that her willingness to put herself at risk went unremarked for decades.

Conversely, Laura Secord, one of the most famous people in Canadian memory of the war, earned a legacy as “the heroine of the War of 1812” through a dramatic journey that supported a simpler, loyalist memory of women’s wartime contributions.224 Secord had already shown her courage during the Battle of Queenston Heights in October 1812, shepherding her children from her house in Queenston to safety and then returning to rescue her husband James who lay wounded on from the battlefield. In saving her children and husband, Secord was motivated by the same instincts of love and preservation that Sarah Cassady had felt but there was no reason to hide her actions. Many women who lived next to battlefields and whose husbands fought in the militia were forced to flee with their children and then search for their spouses among the dead. Secord’s story may not have garnered much attention if not for her later journey that featured unique elements that could be memorialized into a portrait of courageous British loyalism and womanhood.

During the American occupation of Niagara from May to December 1813, the Secords’ house in Queenston was a billet and mess for American officers in the area. In June 1813, James was recovering at home from wounds he received at the Battle of Queenston Heights eight months previously. Although the details remain contested, the Secords somehow learned about a surprise attack on the British camped at Beaver Dams being planned by Cyrenius Chapin, leader of a mounted company of volunteers from Buffalo with a reputation for plundering. The couple determined that someone must warn the British and the job fell to Laura as the only person around able to make the journey.225 In a later recollection, Secord said that she hoped “to save the British troops from capture, or, perhaps, total destruction.” Upon her arrival, she spoke with Lieutenant FitzGibbon, who later certified that Secord had delivered information “that the enemy intended to attempt by surprise to capture a detachment of the 49th regiment.” He also noted that he was concerned she would suffer from “fatigue and anxiety, she having been exposed to danger from the enemy.”226 The warning she provided allowed the British and their native allies to set up an ambush and capture 462 American soldiers, including the infamous Dr. Chapin and his marauders. Laura Secord is by far the most recognizable woman in Canadian memory of the War of 1812 because her journey was immortalized in art, poetry, drama, and history.

Secord’s involvement in this dramatic event was a result of her position as a woman and a loyal British subject. Her marriage to James, a United Empire Loyalist and militia officer, brought an increased sense of responsibility to protect British lives even if it meant putting her own at risk. The American officers living and dining in her home might not have discussed their plans openly in the presence of a British officer but perhaps they let down their guard around Laura, whose political views and loyalties they did not consider worth notice or caution. Her role as housekeeper and purveyor of food, which the Americans accepted without hesitation, certainly afforded ample opportunities to overhear plans and discussions. The roundabout route between Queenston and Beaver Dams that Secord chose to avoid American patrols, however, indicates she was aware that there were limits to how far a woman might go unnoticed in times of war. A woman serving meals and tending house might be little threat to military men discussing plans around a dinner table, but an unaccompanied woman traveling through a war zone with no excuse might not escape hard scrutiny at a checkpoint and severe consequences if identified as a spy. Secord’s determination to save British lives was a result of her socio-cultural position. Her identity as a woman acting in a patriarchal, martial context provided her an unexpected opportunity to act on her convictions. She exploited men’s blindness to her loyalties that resulted from her gender but was also careful to stay within the bounds of acceptable behavior by avoiding trickier points of conflict entirely. While Secord’s individual story is unique among her contemporaries, the description of her “courage, endurance, and resolution in the face of adversity”227 might be applied to many of the women who skillfully navigated the difficult circumstances brought about by the war and their positions within that context.


  1. Martha Cook and Seth Cook, Claim No. 629. LAC, RG 19, E5, Board of Claims for Losses, Volume 3748, File 2, 1823.↩︎

  2. Cook, Claim No. 629.↩︎

  3. Hugh and Susannah Alexander, Claim No. 548. LAC, RG 19, E5, Board of Claims for Losses, Volume 3747, File 3, 1823.↩︎

  4. Alexander, Claim No. 548.↩︎

  5. Elizabeth Campbell, Claim No. 174. LAC, RG 19, E5, Board of Claims for Losses, Volume 3742, File 3, 1823.↩︎

  6. Carnochan, History of Niagara, 34.↩︎

  7. The Report of the Loyal and Patriotic Society of Upper Canada, 299.↩︎

  8. Records of Niagara Historical Society, vol. 11, 25 vols. (Niagara-on-the-Lake: Niagara Historical Society, 1902), 11.↩︎

  9. “Notes by Captain W. H. Merritt” in Cruikshank, DHCNF 5:261-262.↩︎

  10. “Notes by Captain W. H. Merritt” in Cruikshank, DHCNF 5:262.↩︎

  11. Carnochan, History of Niagara, 35.↩︎

  12. Records of Niagara Historical Society, vol. 3, 25 vols. (Niagara-on-the-Lake: Niagara Historical Society, 1896), 37.↩︎

  13. E. A. Cruikshank, The Fight in the Beechwoods: A Study of Canadian History (Welland: W. T. Sawle and Co., Printers, 1895), 11.↩︎

  14. E. A. Cruikshank, ed., “The Quebec Gazette, Thursday, July 15, 1813.,” in Records of Niagara, vol. 44 (Niagara-on-the-Lake: Niagara Historical Society, 1939), 51.↩︎

  15. Cruikshank, “The Quebec Gazette,” 51.↩︎

  16. Alan Taylor, The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010), 306.↩︎

  17. Carnochan, History of Niagara, 34.↩︎

  18. The Board of Claims for Losses rejected the claim of at least one woman, Lydia Smith, because her husband had joined the enemy. Lydia Smith, Claim No. 1471. LAC, RG 19, E5, Board of Claims for Losses, Volume 3755, File 1, 1823.↩︎

  19. Ruth McKenzie, “Ingersoll, Laura (Secord).”↩︎

  20. Peggy Dymond Leavey, Laura Secord: Heroine of the War Of 1812 (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2012), 85-89; Ruth McKenzie, “Ingersoll, Laura (Secord).”↩︎

  21. These three passages by Secord and FitzGibbon are taken from accounts presented as original material in a footnote in Gilbert Auchinleck’s The War of 1812: A History of the War Between Great Britain and the United States of America, During the Years 1812, 1813, and 1814 (W.C. Chewett & Company, 1852), 175n.↩︎

  22. Ruth McKenzie, “Ingersoll, Laura (Secord).”↩︎

Staying and Working Together