Scott:
I emailed you with this reply because I didn't want to post it, but you asked that I post it, so here it is!
"I don't want to post this publicly but your posting is in conflict with my research. The truth, and the true details, are not simple enough to be discussed in front of people who know very little about the true facts and just want an easy answer, so I don't want to post this and look like I'm nitpicking or attacking you, the consultant, or anyone else.
I have absolutely no evidence that there was any skirmish, nor that there was a single shot fired. To the best of my knowledge the British and Canadian Militia retreated quickly when they saw the large number of troops on board those 2 schooners.
I have been unable to find any indication that the Americans went to the old outlet on that mission. Their orders were to try to capture a sloop at 40 Mile Creek (Grimsby) and then capture supplies at the Head-of-the-Lake and destroy the governent buildings. I haven't been able to find any evidence that they found the sloop at 40 Mile Creek. However, I also don't have any report by the Americans involved -- just a newpaper account after the fact in the Buffalo newspaper.
Another group of Americans did visit the old outlet area on another, later, occasion, looking for a way to attack Burlington Heights. They didn't report destroying the redoubt. Rather, they quietly explored the surrounding area and retreated. I once found a report that they broke the windows in Joseph Brant's home, He was already dead for several years and the house was occupied by his widow. It seemed they knew that but were looking for some revenge for Brant's support of the British in the Revolution. I haven't been able to find that report again, but it will eventually turn up again.
I trace these things back to original sources - military orders, military reports, letters between officers and other people involved, reports published at the time, etc. I don't accept accounts written well after the fact by writers who don't report their sources so I can check them. Many history commentators are content to get their facts from other writers, and often carry on legends, myths, half truths, and outright lies and propoganda. I've even read accounts indicating that the Americans fired their cannons at the Kng's Head Inn, but the original military report simple stated "their debarkation being covered by the guns of the vessels, it was deemed prudent to fall back upon the reinforcements which though quickly brought forward, were too late to chastise the marauding acts of an enemy who have precipitately retreated and avoided a contest." Brigadier General Vincent to Sir George Prevost, 19th May, 1813.
On the other hand, Samuel Hatt, in charge of the militia that were away from the Beach when the Americans landed, stated "... I met him [Major Fitzgerald] within two miles of the Beach with a reinforcement of about 30 choice Militia, but he, I think properly too, thought proper to retire to my station at Durand's. The Yankeys burnt the Government House but did no other mischief, they sailed the next day ..." Durand's was near the foot of the mountain on the present line of John Street in Hamilton.
Does sailing the next day sound like a precipitatious retreat to avoid an attack by troops who were only two miles away? Samuel Hatt, of Ancaster, was much nearer to the site, and the truth, than Brigadier-General Vincent, who was at Fort George at the time, and was reporting to his superior officer! This illustrates the difficulty in determining the truth that lies somewhere in various conflicting reports.
I'm suspicious of the research on this issue by the consultant. Could you please send me a copy of the report?"
Fred
