Talk:First Battle of Sacket's Harbor

No references at all?

Nice write up, but where did the information in this article come from? Article needs to be cited throughout.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Added a couple of RS's for anyone with a mind to provide cite's for this article. Have cited a few items myself. Article needs cites throughout. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Provincial Marine of Upper Canada

Some British ships used in the assault on Sacket's Harbor were of the Provincial Marine, the predecessor of the Royal Canadian Navy. Based on that, shouldn't the Colony of Upper Canada be added to the list of belligerents like other articles? I don't see much of a difference, but maybe that's just me. Much obliged to all who take the time to weigh in on this. MarkMcCain (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow...you could not be more wrong. The Provincial Marine is in no way the predecessor of the RCN. The Provincial Marine was an army unit that was incorporated into the Royal Navy in 1813 with the arrival of James Lucas Yeo and Robert Barclay. After the war, there were attempts to make something out of it with naval divisions, but the RCN came out of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and their offshore fisheries patrol, not any military organization. Furthermore, the Provincial Marine officers were officers of the crown and were not beholden to the Colony of Upper Canada in any way or form. Ditto for any of the militia units. If there was some form of guerrilla warfare going on by Upper Canada citizens, then by all means add it to the list of belligerents, but this was an attack by the Provincial Marine solely and therefore entirely under the British command purview. Llammakey (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You should visit the Provincial Marine article page, it contradicts almost everything you've said about the service not being the predecessor of the RCN. The Provincial Marine was replaced in 1910 officially by the Naval Service of Canada (under the Naval Service Act of 1910). The service itself also being listed as a militia prior to the act. I realize even the Provincial Marine were loyalists of the Crown. In any case, forces of the Upper Canada governorship took part in this battle, are we in agreement with that much at least? MarkMcCain (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention, at least four out of five British ships were made in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, which is a national historic site in Canada. The article on the fifth ship doesn't exist. MarkMcCain (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not a source. 2) Per Robert Malcolmson, Warships of the Great Lakes pp. 35-36 "Seeking to regulate the far flung elements of the naval service on the lakes, in 1778 Carleton looked to Lieutenant John Schank, commander of the converted merchantman Canceaux in Commodore Douglas's squadron...and appointed him 'Commissioner of all His Majesty's Naval Yards or Docks upon the Lakes.' Carleton arranged with the Royal Navy for Schank to be seconded from the Royal Navy and placed under his authority at Quebec since Carleton believed the service on the lakes should operate independently of the regular service." Carleton was replaced by Frederick Haldimand who "issued a series of regulations...divided the force into three separate divisions, each with its own senior officer: Lake Champlain - Lieutenant William Chambers, RN; Lake Ontario, Master and Commander James Andrews and, Lake Erie and the Upper Lakes - Alexander Grant. On each station the naval commander was immediately responsible to the senior military officer present, with ultimate control of the force being held by the quartermaster General's office at Quebec." Therefore, not only was the Provincial Marine under the ultimate control of the Quartermaster General, they were also subject to the whims of whatever senior military officer was present, usually a British general. 3) Kingston dockyard at that time was called Kingston Royal Naval Dockyard and under the command of the Royal Navy. 4) People from other colonies were present aboard those ships including the Royal Newfoundland Fencibles, and Frederick Rolette of Lower Canada which a ship of the RCN is being named after. They were, however, all subject to British command. 5) The naval militia act preceeded the RCN, yes, but the RCN did not come from it, as those acts went absolutely nowhere and the naval companies that were created from it either never formed and folded shortly thereafter. The two first formal naval divisions came from the coasts, not Lake Ontario. Llammakey (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not stating Wikipedia per se as a source, but the many references on the article's page that support the entries. Bottom line, my claim that Canadian colonists participated in this battle is valid, should "The Canadas" be added for more of a broader sense of involvement rather than one specific colony, or something else? Either way it's sliced, I believe changes need to be made. The fact that they were under British purview is irrelevant, so was the Bombay Marine of India but that doesn't seem to matter either. MarkMcCain (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No, because then you would have to include every single colony that was under the command of the British, including US, because General Prevost was born in New Jersey of Swiss descent or De Rottenburg who was Prussian. You can't honestly believe that just because somebody from a country served in a war, they should be listed in an infobox. We'd have to add the US to every single infobox prior to their entry into WWII if that was the case. The combatants in an infobox are those that held independent command, and there was not a single unit in this battle that was officially from Upper Canada. You also missed the part about the Royal Newfoundland Fencibles which were from neither of the The Canadas and would be anachronistic to consider them a part of Canada until 1949. Llammakey (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

So rather than assisting in establishing a solution for this, your plan is to come up with various excuses as to why the article's belligerents should remain the same, which only mentions half the latter. Or in other words, a solution without a solution. Unfortunately at this point, I don't agree with your entry, nor my own. Until a third party can offer a fresh perspective I reckon. Cheers. MarkMcCain (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)