This blog is an examination of generalizations and
misconceptions about the history of Mount Pleasant during the War of 1812 reported
in Dr. Sharon Jaeger’s 2004 book, The Work of Our Hands, Mount Pleasant,
Ontario, 1799-1899, A History.[1]
The six statements, from the book, that I will examine are:
1. Captain
Thomas Perrin commanded the “independent Grand River Company” of the 5th
Lincoln Militia. Page 57.
2. This
company was marshalled from the west side of the Grand River. Page 57.
3. Capt.
Perrin was assisted by Lieutenants Frederick Yeoward and Thomas Racey. Page 57.
4. He
served under Major Richard Hatt of the 5th Lincoln Militia. Page 57.
5. Captain
Thomas Perrin commanded his company at the Battle of Lundy’s Lane on July 25,
1814. Page 59.
6. War
loss claims, as a result of General McArthur’s raid, were made by the Biggar,
Burtch, Ellis, McAlister, Nelles, Secord, & Sturgis families and Thomas
Racey. Page 61.
Local histories are often written based on earlier
histories of those communities and usually do not contain sources for the facts
recorded. In her bibliography, Dr.
Jaeger listed earlier histories of Mount Pleasant and additional local
sources. I have been researching the 5th
Lincoln Militia for several years and have had access to a number of primary
documents from the Mount Pleasant area that were not readily available in
2004. I will make some generalizations
about the war based on my research but will list historical sources for my
comments about the militiamen of Mount Pleasant. These sources will include the 5th
Lincoln Militia payroll documents, war loss claims from the Mount Pleasant
area, and the 1816 Grand River Tract Assessment. I welcome discussion on this and related
topics. Let us look more closely at
these six statements.
Captain
Thomas Perrin commanded the “independent Grand River Company” of the 5th
Lincoln Militia?
It was implied that Captain Perrin commanded a militia
company that in some way was “independent”.
This is the first time I have heard a militia company referred to as
“independent.” What were they
independent from? Obviously, they were
not independent from the 5th Regiment of Lincoln Militia.
By omission, it was also implied that Captain Perrin
commanded a militia company throughout the war and that he was the only captain
who commanded the men from the Mount Pleasant area. Three of Captain Perrin’s payroll documents
have survived and can be viewed online through Collections Canada.[2]
The three pay periods were from:
May 5 to May 10, 1814. Document sets 301 & 526.[3]
July 7 to July 24, 1814. Document sets 302 & 528.[4]
October 16 to November 10,
1814. Document sets 300 & 530.[5]
I will refer to these documents as 300, 301, and 302. Note that there were two copies of each
document. As copies were hand-written
they were never identical. This was
particularly noticeable in documents 301 and 526 where names were often spelled
differently in each of these two documents.
Joseph Nelles and Joseph Miller, whose names only appeared once in each
document, were probably the same man.
Document 302 was for the pay period just prior to the
Battle of Lundy’s Lane on July 25th.
Document 300 was from the time period in which General McArthur raided
the Grand River Tract and Mount Pleasant.
Note that all three payroll records are from the year
1814. It could be argued the captain’s
payroll records from 1812 and 1813 did not survive. However, a September 24, 1814 regimental
Return recorded that Captain Thomas Perrin had “not yet received his
Commission.”[6]
This was the first indication that Thomas only served as a
captain in 1814. As Mount Pleasant was
somewhat isolated from the main recruitment area of the 5th Lincoln
Militia, it could be argued that Thomas had been recruited as an officer but
had not yet been officially commissioned.
It would seem unlikely that Thomas had served during three years of war
and had not yet received a commission.
It was more likely that he was recruited in 1814. Three other officers had also not received
their commissions.
The second officer, Captain Frederick Yeoward, who was
reported to have served under Captain Thomas Perrin, was also listed on the
same document as not having received his commission. The payroll records only recorded his name in
1814, once as an ensign and once later as a captain. The third officer, who had not yet received
his commission, was Captain John Aikman.
The payroll documents only recorded his name in 1814. The fourth officer was Captain Robert Land
who had served in 1812 and 1813 as a lieutenant, but only in 1814 as a captain. All four men appeared to have only served as
captains in 1814.
If Captain Thomas Perrin was not recruited as an officer
until 1814, who were the Mount Pleasant men serving under in 1812 and 1813? To answer this question, I had to prepare a
muster roll for Captain Perrin’s men from his three payroll documents and then
look for the same men serving in other companies. Forty-nine men served under the captain,
sometimes in different payrolls, in 1814.
If these men were serving under different captains in 1812
and 1813, this would be the second indication that Thomas Perrin was not
commanding a local company during the first two years of the war.
In 1812, Captain John Lottridge commanded a company for
three consecutive pay periods from:
October 17
to October 24, 1812. Document sets 47,
100, 158, 454, & 457.[7]
October 25
to November 24, 1812. Document sets 228,
306, 384, 460, & 468.[8]
November
25 to December 16, 1812. Document sets
26, 107, & 476.[9]
The number of names found in these documents and in Captain
Perrin’s muster roll were 4 out of 68, 11 out of 86, and 6 out of 87. Only one of Captain Perrin’s men served in
another company in 1812. The Mount
Pleasant men therefore appeared to have served in small groups in Captain
Lottridge’s Company in 1812. The small
number could be accounted for because Captain Lottridge was not a resident of
Mount Pleasant and would have had difficulty mustering men and bringing them
east across the Grand River to serve at the Head of the Lake and in the Niagara
District. I will refer to these three
documents as 457, 468, and 476. Captain
Lottridge died near the end of November, 1812 and another captain took over
commanding the Mount Pleasant men in 1813.
Captain Samuel Hatt commanded companies of men mustered
from a number of different communities during the war. Mount Pleasant men served in his company in
1813 on the following occasions:
May 3 to
May 24, 1813. Document 345.[10]
July 7 to
July 24, 1813. Documents 179 & 347.[11]
The number of names found in these documents and in Captain
Perrin’s muster roll were 2 out of 38 and 8 out of 46. One man served in Captain John Westbrook’s
Company and one man served in a detachment under the command of Ensign Daniel
Showers. The Mount Pleasant men
therefore appeared to have served in small groups in Captain Hatt’s Company in
1813 as they had in Captain Lottridge’s Company in 1812.
The Mount Pleasant militia men therefore served during the
first two years of the war but not, at that time, under Captain Thomas Perrin.
Here is a chart of the men who served under Captain Thomas
Perrin in 1814, their probable place of residence during the war, and the
numbers of the payroll documents where their names were recorded:
Men
who Served in Capt. Thos. Perrin’s Company
Name Location Document Numbers
Capt. Thomas Perrin Mt.
P. 301, 302, 300
Lieut. Lebeus Gardner Burford 351, 300
Sgt. Charles Irwin ? 302
Sgt. William Nelles Mt.
P. 179, 287a, 300
Sgt. John Sturges Mt.
P. 141, 301, 302, 300
Privates (45 men)
Paul Averill Jr. GR 457, 468, 300
Absalom Burtch Mt.
P. 301, 302
David Burtch Mt.
P. 300
Stephen Burtch Mt.
P. 301
D. Conaway ? 301
Horis Cooly Mt.
P. 302
Benjamin Day GRT 300
Allan Ellis Mt.
P. 141, 300
John Ellis Mt.
P. 300
John Garner/Gardner ? 468, 476, 300
Adam Heather GRT 457, 468, 476, 345, 179, 301,
302
Thomas Heather GRT 345, 179, 302
Richard Huey ? 300
Asa Ingram ? 301, 302
Elisha Ladd ? 292b, 301
Hiram Martin Mt.
P. 301, 300
Jason Mason ? 301, 302
Jess Millard Mt.
P. 301, 302
Noah Millard Mt.
P. 468, 476, 301, 302
Samuel Millard Mt.
P. 301, 302, 300
David Miller Mt.
P. 457, 468, 301, 300 and
possibly others
Joseph Miller/Nelles Mt.
P. 301
Benjamin Myers GRT 179, 301, 302
Charles Myers GRT 468, 476, 179, 301, 302, 300
Joshua Myers GRT 468, 476, 179, 302
Henry Nelles GRT 301, 300
John Nelles GRT 302, 300
G. Olmsted Mt.
P. 301
Isaac Olmstead Mt
P. 301
Jacob Olmstead Mt.
P. 468, 302
Thomas Perrin Jr. Mt.
P. 468, 301, 300
O/C Rouse ? 301
David Secord Mt.
P. 301
John Secord Sr. Mt.
P. 468, 476, 179, 302, 300
John Secord Jr. Mt.
P. 302, 300
Joseph Sprague ? 301
Thomas Sturges Mt.
P. 141, 301, 302
Mathias Thomas Mt.
P. 300
Richard Vanatter ? 457, 468, 179, 301, 302,
300
Absalom Whiting GR 300
G. Willman GRT 301
Ariel Witt GRT 302
The men in the muster roll located in the area of Mount
Pleasant (Mt. P.) had surnames recorded in The Work of Our Hands or in the war
loss claims. Men located in Grand River
(GR) had surnames recorded in the war loss claims as residents of Grand River. The Grand River Tract (GRT) location
indicated surnames found in The Work of Our Hands or in the 1816 Grand River
Tract Assessment.
Note that ten of the men had surnames that could not be
associated with the Mount Pleasant area or elsewhere nearby. These men could have been transferred to
Captain Thomas Perrin’s company to augment his numbers or may have been living
in the same community but were not recorded in my sources or in Dr. Jaeger’s
book.
The third indication that Thomas Perrin was not likely to
have served as an officer in 1812 and 1813 was because he was the miller in
Mount Pleasant. Millers could claim an
exemption from militia service during the war.
Upper Canada was not producing enough food and other supplies to support
British forces stationed in the province.
The British were dependent on a steady of supplies being shipped from
Lower Canada. Weather and the Americans
disrupted this supply line. The British
had to resolve the problems of maintaining supplies while also maintaining an
active militia force. Some
accommodations were made as to when men could and could not be mustered and a
number of men were exempt from militia because they provided essential services.
By 1814, it may have become obvious that there were men in
the Mount Pleasant area who could have been serving in the militia if there was
a local officer there to muster them and bring them east or command them while
they were stationed in the Mount Pleasant area. Thomas would have been a well-known leader in
the community and he may by that time have had a subordinate to help manage the
mill while he was absent. His payroll
records indicate that he certainly managed to muster more local men then those
mustered by Captains Lottridge and Hatt.
In document 301 he mustered at least 17, in 302, at least 17, and in 300,
at least 18.
Captain
Thomas Perrin’s Company was marshalled from the west side of the Grand River?
From the chart above, 49 men served in Captain Perrin’s
Company in 1814. By location, 38 of the
surnames were found either living in the Mount Pleasant area or in the Grant
River Tract before, during, or after the War of 1812. The evidence strongly supports the statement
that Thomas Perrin was mustering from those areas.
A number of men were confirmed by name but a lack of family
history sources made it impossible to find documentation for each specific man
and I therefore was forced to rely on an analysis based in part on surnames.
Captain
Thomas Perrin was assisted by Lieutenants Frederick Yeoward and Thomas Racey?
Captain Perrin’s three payroll documents did not record the
name of either of these men. The only
lieutenant serving with him was Lebeus Gardner who appeared to have been a
resident of Burford Township. However,
the possibility does exist that the captain’s company had served more that
three times in 1814 and that other payrolls may have been lost or misplaced.
Documentation does suggest that Frederick Yeoward may have
been at the Battle of Lundy’s Lane where Captain Perrin’s Company was reported
to have served. He had reported his
place of residence as Mount Pleasant in 1814.
Thomas Racey was known to have had a merchant’s store in
Mount Pleasant during the war in partnership with Samuel Hatt of Ancaster
Township. Thomas Racey served on the
Niagara Frontier with the 5th Lincoln Militia from October 24 to
December 16, 1812. Someone else must
have been managing the Mount Pleasant store for him at that time. He did not appear to have served with the 5th
Lincoln Militia in 1813 and 1814 but he was reported to have been at the Battle
of Lundy’s Lane and at least two other battles. Were these reports based on a missing payroll
documents or was he serving in another regiment or corps?
Captain
Thomas Perrin served under Major Richard Hatt of the 5th Lincoln
Militia?
The 5th Regiment of Lincoln Militia was
commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Bradt.
Militia regimental commanders were lieutenant colonels during the
war. Major Richard Hatt was second in
command. At times, he commanded militia
detachments but there was no record that Captain Thomas Perrin served in one of
those detachments. This brings us
indirectly back again to the problem of who was at Lundy’s Lane. While Lieutenant Colonel Richard Beasley
commanded the 2nd York Militia at Lundy’s Lane, it was his major who
lead the men during their attack upon the Americans. How do historians know that Thomas Perrin
served actively under Major Hatt?
Captain
Thomas Perrin commanded his company at the Battle of Lundy’s Lane on July 25,
1814?
We know from his payroll documents that Lieutenant Colonel
Andrew Bradt was commanding a detachment on July 24, 1814, but we cannot
document where he was stationed.
Histories record that he commanded a detachment on July 25th
at the Battle of Lundy’s Lane but that payroll document does not appear to have
survived. It is logical to surmise that
he was near there on the 24th, if he was there on the 25th. Captain Perrin’s Company was not serving with
this detachment on the 24th.
Did they join it on the 25th?
Captain Thomas Perrin was commanding his own company on
July 24, 1814, but we do not know where they were stationed either. Histories report that he was at the battle on
the 25th, but again we lack a payroll document as proof. If his company was there, were they actively
engaged with the Americans or acting in a supporting role?
On page 54, Dr. Jaeger reported that Allan Ellis had hauled
supplies for the troops at Lundy’s Lane.
He was serving in Captain Thomas Perrin’s Company on the 24th. This suggests that either Perrin’s Company
was at Lundy’s Lane or that Allan had been dismissed from militia duty and was
employed as a teamster. Either way,
Allan Ellis had to have been nearby on the 24th. Was the whole company providing logistical
support?
On page 59, in Dr. Jaeger’s book, it was reported that the
company had cleared the road for the regular troops. This was a supportive role.
Benjamin Myers’ family history had him slightly wounded in
the arm and his coat torn by grape shot at the battle while with Captain Thomas
Perrin. He was not serving in the company
the day before the battle. Was this a
reliable report? Was he wounded while
fighting or supporting the army? Was he
there as a militia member or was he employed in a supportive role, such as a
teamster? Teamsters were generally not
paid through militia documents but did need a certificate from an officer
confirming that they were owed money for their services. Some of these certificates can be found in
the war loss claims because the teamsters had not received their pay during the
war. Benjamin could have been employed
as a teamster and have therefore been exempt from service in Captain Perrin’s
Company the days before the battle.
Donald E. Graves wrote that the militia had briefly engaged
the American’s before the main American force had arrived on the battlefield
and that the militia were then disarmed by the British because they were
ineffective and would be of more assistance in a supportive role. During the battle the militia gathered the
wounded, guarded prisoners, and cleared the fields so that the soldiers could
manoeuver.[12]
Could Captain Perrin’s Company have engaged in both of
these activities as well? There is
undocumented historical evidence that Perrin’s Company was at Lundy’s Lane and
that they played a supporting role but not whether or not they engaged the
Americans. Further research might reveal
more details about the roles the Mount Pleasant played during this battle.
War
loss claims, as a result of General McArthur’s raid, were made by the Biggar,
Burtch, Ellis, McAlister, Nelles, Secord, & Sturgis families and Thomas
Racey?
I have indexed the claims and have been studying them for a
number of years. The claims registers
recorded the claimants by their place of residence when they submitted their
claims. This was not necessarily the
same place that they were living when they suffered their loss. A number of people chose or were forced to
move during the war. The first post-war
claims were submitted to commissions in 1815 and 1816. From those claims I know that at least 43 men
living in the Grand River or Mount Pleasant area, at that time, presented
claims. At least 22 were for losses
during General McArthur’s raids in November, 1814. At least 30 families, based on surnames, made
claims. The possibility exists that
families who moved from the area after the war submitted claims from a different
place of residence or that they made a claim without declaring their place of
residence. These claims would increase
the number of losses presented above.
Including Thomas Perrin’s, Dr. Jaeger only had knowledge of
9 surnames of people who submitted war loss claims from the Mount Pleasant
area. From my index, I have 30 surnames:
Averill, Biggar, Bennell, Burtch,
Chapin, Cornwall, Day, Dodge, Ellis, File, Graham, Hawley, Heather, Jackson,
Johnston, Martin, Millard, Miller, Munson, Nelles, Perrin, Phelps, Powers, Racey,
Secord, Smith, Sturgis, Thomas, Wesbrook, and Witt.
These war loss claims would make an interesting study for a
student or local historian. Enquiries
are welcome.
There were some truths in Dr. Jaeger’s history but
historical documents suggested that there were more details about the Mount
Pleasant Militia that could have been presented. The documents also raised a number of
questions that need further exploration.
Fred Blair
Copyright October 29, 2016
[3] Collections
Canada, War of 1812: Upper Canada
Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, pages 1062 & 1198.
[4] Collections
Canada, War of 1812: Upper Canada
Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, pages 1065 & 1199.
[5] Collections
Canada, War of 1812: Upper Canada
Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, pages 1067 & 1197.
[6] Collections
Canada, War of 1812: Upper Canada
Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, page 858.
[7] Collections
Canada, War of 1812: Upper Canada
Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, pages 1008-1009,
1011-1012 & t-10387, pages 35-39, 72-76, & 119-123.
[8] Collections
Canada, War of 1812: Upper Canada
Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, pages 1014-1018 &
t-10387, pages 196-198, 257-259, & 318-320.
[9]
Collections Canada, War of 1812: Upper
Canada Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, pages 1022-1024
& t-10387, pages 370-371 & 418-419.
[10] Collections
Canada, War of 1812: Upper Canada
Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, page 946.
[11] Collections
Canada, War of 1812: Upper Canada
Returns, Nominal Rolls and Paylists, Microfilm t-10386, pages 948-949 &
1130-1131.
[12]
No comments:
Post a Comment