Four Years on the Great Lakes, 1813-1816. Don Bamford
village of that same name. The mandate of the hospital, as expressed in its founding charter of October 25, 1694, stated the hospital’s purpose as, “the reliefe and support of Seamen serving on board the Ships and Vessells belonging to the Navy Royall... who by reason of Age, Wounds or other disabilities shall be uncapable of further service...and unable to maintain themselves.”13
According to the Internet site for the National Maritime Museum,14 the full name of the hospital was The Royal Hospital for Seamen, Greenwich: A Refuge for All. It has a remarkable history worth pursuing.
These naval retirees became known as Greenwich Pensioners. We are not aware of any system of ranks that were maintained within that group, although it is apparent that a committee or council of commissioners may have governed them. A posting on the website for Ancestry.com notes that there were also “out” patients on the Greenwich Pensioner list: “A Greenwich Hospital pensioner was a Royal Navy sailor who had been found to be suitable to be granted an army pension through disability or having completed full-service. He would subsequently be placed upon the Royal Hospital, Greenwich Board. The term therefore indicated that the man was a military pensioner as opposed to a civilian one. An out pensioner was one who lived at home and received his pension through an Admiralty agent. An in-pensioner was one actually resident at Greenwich.”15
Also noted elsewhere, you will read that Wingfield’s death certificate records him as “Commander” at half pay. A pencilled note on the front page of the journal copy from Library and Archives Canada also reads “Com.,” perhaps a short form for the same term. (The normal abbreviation is “Cdr.”) We do not know why this notation was added. We do have records to confirm that the Miss Wingfield who delivered the journal ascribed it to Commander David Wingfield, her ancestor — we believe, her father. It is possible that the title “Commander” was used simply as a term of endearment, worth more to an elderly sailor than an actual promotion from Admiralty House. To further confuse the issue, in the 1975 Union List of Manuscripts in Canadian Repositories,16 he is noted, surely in error, as “Commodore Wingfield.” Even after consideration of these matters, Wingfield’s status as Greenwich Pensioner is still unresolved.
Wingfield may have been sick or injured in his last years. As such, he possibly could have been convalescing in Greenwich Hospital, which was the base hospice for these pensioners, or was an outpatient who stayed at home. He could have been referred to as the commander there too, at the stage when respect mattered more than official titles. If so, his rank, “Commander,” most likely would be added to his death certificate.
We can make assumptions, but at this stage, there is no documentation to verify any of these speculations.
The Lake Service in Canada 17
Why were David Wingfield and the other almost five hundred seamen and officers sent to Canada in 1813?
America had declared war on Britain and Canada on June 18, 1812. The British Army, Canadian Militia, and Provincial Marine desperately needed help to hold off the attackers. Britain started to gather trained officers, soldiers, and seamen from European, Caribbean, and other service theatres, and to transport them to Canada as quickly as possible.
Why did America declare war? Literally hundreds of books and articles have been published about the war. The authors have posited many reasons for its declaration.
To simplify a still contentious subject, the reasons frequently given are:
1. Britain’s harassment of American shipping, to prevent supplies getting to Napoleon’s forces, and to ensure that adequate supplies reached British forces. Great Britain had been fighting, at times almost single-handedly, against Napoleon’s forces since 1792.18
2. Britain’s habit of taking British seamen forcibly, from neutral vessels, and impressing them into the British navy.
3. British fur-trading activity in the areas northwest of what America claimed as its own, e.g. Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Michigan, and even further west.
4. The presence of several British forts in these states, primarily to protect its fur trading activity, as well as to deal with and to influence the Native people.
The first two reasons were summed up by the War Hawks, primarily from Kentucky and the South with their oft-touted slogan, “Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights.”19 The latter two reasons were largely suppressed or ignored as irrelevant by some in the Congress and other officials of Washington who promoted the war. The New England states were generally unenthusiastic about the war. They were heavily involved in trade and shipping with nations considered to be the enemy, and a war would cut into their livelihood. Some of these states even refused to supply militia forces, which Washington demanded. Some of the reluctant states even refused to contribute to the war loans sought by Washington to support and strengthen the war effort.
Other states, particularly in the South, were much more eager to support the war. They wanted new land for settlement and development. From their perspective, the fur trade profits should line their own pockets rather than those of the British. According to some, the British and the Native people, whom some called “sojourners on our land,”20 must be driven out so American expansion could proceed unfettered.
It is worth mentioning that in this text we have retained the name “Indian” as it was commonly used throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, until the current era. We respect that more contemporary terminology such as First Nations people or aboriginals might be more appropriate, but in the present context, we judge, with respect, that the usual nomenclature is more suitable in this context. It must be pointed out that both sides used the Native warriors as allies throughout the war. They, however, were fighting for what they deemed to be their own land, and would support the side that they felt had the best chance of settling a particular problem to their satisfaction.
There were others who felt that the War of Independence had not been completed satisfactorily and deemed that America had a divine right to control all of North America. They believed that the United States had a “manifest destiny”21 to capture and hold all of British North America, and that the country to the north was a ripening fruit, just ready for the plucking. In 1810, in a speech to Congress, Henry Clay, Democratic-Republican senator from Kentucky, stated, “The conquest of Canada is in your power. I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet.”22
The David Wingfield Papers are well known to historians of the War of 1812, on both sides of the border. The 68-page journal has long been available from Library and Archives Canada, in Ottawa.23 Historians of this war have read his journal up to the point when peace was declared and the fighting ceased in mid-February 1815. After that, the attitude seems to be, “What could he ever do or say that was worth putting into a history book?” Consequently, half of his journal seems to have been mostly ignored.
His actions, both generally and specifically during the winter of 1815–16, however, were outstanding. They alone elevate his stature to rival that of famous adventurers and explorers, such as Sir John Franklin, Martin Frobisher, Robert Falcon Scott, and Henry Hudson.
It is for this reason that we are writing this text to bring that neglected part of his journal to public attention.
Map 3: Map of Upper Canada and Great Lakes Basin, circa 1800, compiled by David William Smyth, Esq., at request of Major John G. Simcoe. This map shows Upper Canada and the adjacent waterways as they were recorded in the decade prior to Wingfield’s arrival in Canada.
Upper Canada at the Time of Wingfield’s Arrival
The situation, in brief, at the time when a war was started between the two nations, neither