From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Where is the proof of this statement:

"The many acts of arson and looting committed by American troops at York were to become the pretext for the later Burning of Washington by the British."?

Hmmm. Perhaps a better wording would be "excuse" rather than "pretext". Sir George Prevost definitely did request Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, then commanding the RN ships on the American station, to retaliate for the destruction of property in an American raid on Long Point. (Hitsman, Graves, The Incredible War of 1812, p240). This event occurred early in 1814, shortly before Cochrane landed Ross's army, which did the burning. There were any number of British and Canadians who in effect said, "Serve you right" after the Burning of Washington; Revd. John Strachan for one. HLGallon 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it was an excuse or a pretext. The attack on Washington was a direct result of York and the British did not try to disguise it or make any excuses for it. It should be noted that Rear Admiral Cockburn was utterly unapologetic about it and refused the entreaties of his subordinates to spare some of the more impressive public buildings in Washington as that would have defeated the object.

What is seldom mentioned by Americans is that Cockburn was at great pains to only torch public buildings and his troops were under the strictest orders to protect private properties and leave civilians unmolested. This is in stark contrast to the behaviour of the Americans at York. It is amply demonstrated by the fact that when he was about to set fire to a newspaper office (because it had been,as he saw it, maligning him) he relented when a delegation of local women told him that their houses might very well become caught up in the fire. He therefore ordered his men to dismantle the building manually brick by brick and destroy the machinery. Hardly the act of a marauding thug. PrivateWiddle 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Burning of the warships at York

I don't think it was certain that it was the Americans who burned all the warships. British Gen. Sheaffe had ordered the destruction of the Sir Isaac Brock and naval stores as his forces retreated to Kingston - the Americans had not landed forces east of the fort to impede their retreat. (City of Toronto Planning and Development Department, ''Fort York: Heritage Conservation Study (1984), p6) The US Secretary of War John Armstrong criticized Dearborn for failing to seize the Brock before the retreating British had torched it, and for allowing the fort garrison to escape. SCrews 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there seems to be confusion about whether the HMS Duke of Gloucester was captured or sailed away from York prior to the battle. The galafilm.com site for their War of 1812 project says that it sailed away, yet the ship's article here says the Americans captured it. This should be verified. SCrews 03:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just rechecked as many accounts of the battle as I can lay my hands on. The most reliable authorities (Roosevelt, C.P. Stacey, etc) agree that HMS Duke of Gloucester (1813) was captured at York, and either towed or sailed to Sacket's Harbor. Although it was nominally armed with 10 guns, it was very old and in poor condition, and the Americans thought it was a pretty poor prize. The ship *was* set on fire and burned by the Americans themselves when they thought the British were about to capture their Navy Yard during the Battle of Sackett's Harbor. In this instance, galafilm has got it wrong, or not clarified matters.

It was indeed the British who fired HMS Isaac Brock at York, as the article makes clear. I may delete the reference to the Prince Regent. The ship of this name which joined the British squadron in 1814 was a 40-gun frigate, several times the size of the Brock. There is no reference to it having been constructed at York. I suspect that the only source in which I found any reference to the Prince Regent having been at York (an article by Charles W. Humphries in Zaslow, The Defended Border) either got the year wrong, or perhaps mistook a small schooner of the same name for the frigate. HLGallon 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:"The many acts of arson and looting committed by American troops at York were to become the pretext for the later Burning of Washington by the British."?

John R. Elting states that planning for the raid on Washington had begun in Mar. 1813(a month before the burning of York)Danwild6 (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mace of Parliament

It should be noted in the article that the most interesting loot that the Americans captured was the mace of parliament, symbol the Crown's authority - as York was Upper Canada's capital. It remained at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis until 1934 when President Roosevelt returned it as a friendly gesture during Toronto's centennial. (John Woolley and Gerhard Peters,The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14862. SCrews 13:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrrhic Victory?

I understand how Bunker Hill can be considered a Pyrrhic Victory but the raid on York had significant implications on the future course of the war. The among the munitions seized at York were the cannon destined for the Provincial Marine Lake Erie squadron. The capture of these undoubtedly contributed to the US victory at Put-in-Bay. At the Battle of Put-in-Bay the British had to strip guns from the Fort Amherstburg(Malden)to arm their squadron. Danwild6 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)