• Home
  • Ruminations
  • Novel Excerpts
    • Excerpt Two
    • Excerpt Three
  • The Stories Available Here
    • Buying a Stone
    • She and I
    • Turtle, Partridge and the Wolves
    • Marge and Terry
    • For Betty
    • Stories from the Home Front
    • The Duel, January 3, 1800
    • Who She Was Remains
  • Contact
  • Links of Interest
kenlelandauthor.com

Brock’s Speech to the Militia at Culver’s Tavern

8/27/2014

2 Comments

 
PictureGeneral Isaac Brock, painted by G. T. Berthon, 1883
Wednesday Evening, August 5, 1812

Historians agree this event took place, but there is no record of what British General Isaac Brock said that night. However, from subsequent events, it is clear his speech was remarkably effective. At Culver’s Tavern, Brock changed the minds of Upper Canada farmers and shopkeepers who had, only days before, steadfastly refused an order to muster for duty. Somehow Brock transformed reluctant civilians into companies of men willing to fight an invading American army.

Perhaps your interest is peaked. What did Brock say and how did he say it?

At this point, historians typically pass to other matters, explaining, ‘It’s only speculation from here on.’ However, it is the aim of a writer of historical fiction, who has studied the times and people involved, to portray what happened. If done skillfully, the novelist allows readers to stand in that audience to witness an event that occurred two hundred years ago.

But that’s guess work! Well of course it is, to a certain extent, but the novelist’s account is based on a calculation of probabilities, given facts that are known. What then are the probabilities? What issues might Brock have spoken to that evening?

Almost certainly, General Brock acknowledged the presence of traitors and American spies standing among the audience as he spoke, acknowledged the success those provocateurs had instilling fears among people who might otherwise be loyal.


PictureFort Mackinac
One claim spread by American Brigadier General William Hull’s agents was that the First Nations would not fight against American invaders. Indeed, it was true and widely known that the Six Nations people living on the Grand River were hesitating to join in Upper Canada’s defense in response to entreaties from the Iroquois still residing in New York State.* On good authority, the Iroquois below thought they would be punished, driven from their reserves, if their Brothers in Upper Canada aided the British.

A related rumour spread by those in favour of American victory was that, if Loyalist militia left their homes undefended, Indians would attack defenseless Loyalist families. Most probably, Brock countered these fears with heartening news only just arrived from Fort Mackinac. This news was of a victory by First Nations warriors and British regulars, fighting together, to seize Mackinac on July 12.

Another rumour was that disaffection among civilians in Upper Canada was so widespread, the militia would not fight, leaving only vastly outnumbered British regulars to defend the province. Disaffection among recent immigrants to Upper Canada was real, easily recognized, and dangerous.** As Brock spoke to the people of Norwich and nearby communities, a number of whom ranked themselves among the disloyal, Brock had a perfect retort – accompanying him in his dash to defend Upper Canada's frontier were two hundred militiamen of 1st York and 5th Lincoln. It must be supposed Brock took the opportunity to introduce them to the audience as paragons of loyalty, as men willing to defend the province’s western front, already hard-pressed by Hull’s invading army.

Finally, at some point, Brock presumably appealed to the compassion and patriotism of the Loyalist families who stood before him, knowing full well that the sympathies of American immigrants were beyond his reach. Perhaps in this appeal Brock said something very much like the following:

“The people of Baldoon and Sandwich and Amherstburg are hoping, praying, for our help. Their homes are being looted, their farms are burning. Their need is urgent.

Before you stand men of York and Niagara. We leave at midnight to throw the invaders out.

I ask you now. Will you join us?”

This is but a small part of how the novelist imagines Brock’s speech that night.
Could there be errors of omission or commission, compared to what actually occurred? Again, of course there could be, but it can be argued convincingly that probabilities lie strongly in favour of Brock speaking on these issues.

The complete version of the novelist’s recreation of Brock’s speech appears on pages 192-195 of 1812 The Land Between Flowing Waters. (Order information appears on the opening page of this website.)



by Ken Leland, 2014

 * The Journal of Major John Norton, 1816, pages 294-198,  published by the Champlain Society, 1970

** Plunder, Profit, and Paroles, Chapter Two, by George Sheppard,  McGill-Queens University Press, 1994.

2 Comments

The Half Sentence

8/9/2014

0 Comments

 
I can imagine no more terrifying thought than the one expressed here:

If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth, facts or evidence, . . .*

Here is an excerpt from a July, 2014, New York Times column by Paul Krugman about facts and evidence:
PictureWoodburn Hall, Indiana University







On July 6, The Times published an article by the political scientist Brendan Nyhan about a troubling aspect of the current American scene: the stark partisan divide over issues that should be simply factual, like whether the planet is warming or evolution happened. It’s common to attribute such divisions to ignorance, but as Mr. Nyhan points out, the divide is worse among those who are better informed about the issues.

The problem isn’t ignorance; it’s wishful thinking. Confronted with a conflict between evidence and what they want to believe for political and /or religious reasons, many people reject the evidence. And knowing more about the issues widens the divide, because the well informed have a clearer view of which evidence they need to reject to sustain their belief system.

*The half-sentence was written by J. R. R. Tolkien and published in Tree and Leaf, 1964, in a essay entitled ‘On Fairy-stories.’ The sentence is concluded as follows: “. . . then Fantasy would languish until they are cured. If they ever get into that state (it would not seem at all impossible), Fantasy would perish, and become Morbid Delusion.”

The fate of Fantasy as a literary genre does not concern me at all compared to the implication that both the U.S. and Canada are in rapid devolution into medieval, pre-scientific societies.







0 Comments

    Ken's

    Various, or odd, thoughts.

    Archives

    February 2017
    December 2015
    November 2015
    June 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.