Colonel David Fitz-Enz, American Historian and Graeme Decarie, Canadian Historian
Further Reading |
Sir George Prevosts decision to withdraw from Plattsburg once the British fleet had been defeatedDecarie: Prevost was fairly severely criticized by a naval court martial, not by an army court martial. A very interesting point. Because the navy had lost the battle, a battle they shouldn't have lost. After all, they had guns that out ranged the Americans'. If they could have just stayed away from the Americans, like to stay five hundred yards away from the ships, the Americans couldn't have touched them; and they would have reduced the American force to match sticks in about twenty minutes. But, instead, because Downie was new on the lake, he'd only been here two weeks, wasn't familiar with the winds, the force had to drift in. He now has himself in a new naval engagement. He's simply bombarding ships that can bombard him back, and it becomes a slugging contest. And he loses that contest because at the last minute the American ships can -- one of them can rotate, establish a new side of guns and finish the battle. This is an invasion, and they plan
to stay as far south as they can. He can't stay south without the fleet.
He's got to have command of the lake. He's got to have vessels that can
transport his troops and the supplies, as long as the lake is open. And
in spring, to resupply them and to go further south. The army taking Plattsburg
would have cost him some men. Why take those casualties when he'll have
to go home anyway, he says. |