Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including Confederatardation

[Malthus]

I read Simcoe's Queen's Rangers: John Simcoe and His Rangers During the Revolutionary War for America and Gara's The Queen's American Rangers several months ago and you are correct.

Both are fairly detailed.

Out of curiousity, what did those two works have to say about this particular incident?

[grumbler]

I don't understand your post. You essentially reiterate my conclusions, with some different analysis of the evidence granted, yet you state that you are convinced I am wrong.   

You didn't understand it, because you didn't read it very carefully. 

Try reading even the first sentence out loud, and perhaps you will start to understand the post.

I disagree that Simcoe thinking everyone had been killed makes it more likely that a take no prisoners order was issued. Simcoe was writing his account some time after the events. It would seem likely that he only remembered vaguely what casualties had been taken. It is clear from reading his account that what really weighed on his mind was the death of the Judge; he devotes a lot more space to explaining that, than the other deaths in the place. 

I understand that you disagree.  I explained why I thought the way I did, and you explain nothing about why you disagree.  You don't have to explain your beliefs, but don't expect anyone to understand them given that you don't.  That was one of the points I was making in the post you do not understand.  Simcoe isn't vague about the extent of American casualties;  he says "all of whom were killed."  The way in which he addresses the death of the judge is neither here nor there.

[Malthus]

I don't understand your post. You essentially reiterate my conclusions, with some different analysis of the evidence granted, yet you state that you are convinced I am wrong.   

You didn't understand it, because you didn't read it very carefully. 

Try reading even the first sentence out loud, and perhaps you will start to understand the post.

I disagree that Simcoe thinking everyone had been killed makes it more likely that a take no prisoners order was issued. Simcoe was writing his account some time after the events. It would seem likely that he only remembered vaguely what casualties had been taken. It is clear from reading his account that what really weighed on his mind was the death of the Judge; he devotes a lot more space to explaining that, than the other deaths in the place. 

I understand that you disagree.  I explained why I thought the way I did, and you explain nothing about why you disagree.  You don't have to explain your beliefs, but don't expect anyone to understand them given that you don't.  That was one of the points I was making in the post you do not understand.  Simcoe isn't vague about the extent of American casualties;  he says "all of whom were killed."  The way in which he addresses the death of the judge is neither here nor there.

This isn't worth pursuing.

[11B4V]

I read Simcoe's Queen's Rangers: John Simcoe and His Rangers During the Revolutionary War for America and Gara's The Queen's American Rangers several months ago and you are correct.

Both are fairly detailed.

Out of curiousity, what did those two works have to say about this particular incident?

I got both books on my phone. At work right now.

Essentially;

Gara

1. 20 March; Simcoe, Mawhood and small detachment reconned hancock bridge and surrounding area. They new the strength of the Militia (30 Men at most). The importance of the house was it commanded the passage of the bridge on the south side. Mawhood's initial report of 400 militia in the area was in error. Possibly referring to the early operation at Quinton's Bridge a few days before. Possibly total militia in the area.

2. There is no mention of an order to kill everyone in either book. The only order Mawhood given was to pay for anything taken during foraging ops. Remember this attack and the one at Quiton's bridge was part of a larger foraging operation.

3. Simcoe was told that the house owner, William Hancock (a Loyalist), would not be there and did not live in the house while the militia was using it. He was as it turned and was killed by accident along with all the militia either killed or wounded.




My take; Any unsubstantiated claims by a News paper Article and Park Service Handout is hogwash till proven otherwise. 

[Malthus]

I read Simcoe's Queen's Rangers: John Simcoe and His Rangers During the Revolutionary War for America and Gara's The Queen's American Rangers several months ago and you are correct.

Both are fairly detailed.

Out of curiousity, what did those two works have to say about this particular incident?

I got both books on my phone. At work right now.

Essentially;

Gara

1. 20 March; Simcoe, Mawhood and small detachment reconned hancock bridge and surrounding area. They new the strength of the Militia (30 Men at most). The importance of the house was it commanded the passage of the bridge on the south side. Mawhood's initial report of 400 militia in the area was in error. Possibly referring to the early operation at Quinton's Bridge a few days before. Possibly total militia in the area.

2. There is no mention of an order to kill everyone in either book. The only order Mawhood given was to pay for anything taken during foraging ops. Remember this attack and the one at Quiton's bridge was part of a larger foraging operation.

3. Simcoe was told that the house owner, William Hancock (a Loyalist), would not be there and did not live in the house while the militia was using it. He was as it turned and was killed by accident along with all the militia either killed or wounded.




My take; Any unsubstantiated claims by a News paper Article and Park Service Handout is hogwash till proven otherwise.

Thanks for that. That concurs with what I've been arguing.

[11B4V]

I don't understand your post. You essentially reiterate my conclusions, with some different analysis of the evidence granted, yet you state that you are convinced I am wrong.   

You didn't understand it, because you didn't read it very carefully. 

Try reading even the first sentence out loud, and perhaps you will start to understand the post.

I disagree that Simcoe thinking everyone had been killed makes it more likely that a take no prisoners order was issued. Simcoe was writing his account some time after the events. It would seem likely that he only remembered vaguely what casualties had been taken. It is clear from reading his account that what really weighed on his mind was the death of the Judge; he devotes a lot more space to explaining that, than the other deaths in the place. 

I understand that you disagree.  I explained why I thought the way I did, and you explain nothing about why you disagree.  You don't have to explain your beliefs, but don't expect anyone to understand them given that you don't.  That was one of the points I was making in the post you do not understand.  Simcoe isn't vague about the extent of American casualties;  he says "all of whom were killed."  The way in which he addresses the death of the judge is neither here nor there.

As always, the numbers are somewhere in the middle. Simcoe may have thought all were dead. It's not like the went around ensuring that fact.

"all of whom were killed."  according to Simcoe. Simcoe Queen's Rangers: John Simcoe and His Rangers During the Revolutionary War for America

Local historians, 6-8 Killed and several wounded, with some dying later of their wounds. Captain Charlton Sheppard, named, was one of the wounded survivors. Robertson The History of Salem County

[11B4V]

IMO as I said before, Simcoe's portrayal in Turn is hogwash.

[KRonn]

I noticed the similarity and thought it was a weird coincidence. But it is the same guy. Heh.

Yup. After serving on the Brit side in the Revolution, he became GG for Upper Canada, where he was very active.

Here, remnants of his service are everywhere. My dad's cottage is in Simcoe County, near Lake Simcoe; he's revered for all sorts of colonial era foundations; he passed the legislation  that emancipated the slaves.

Contrary to his recent TV portrayal, he hardly ever horribly murdered or stalked anyone while in office. 

When I first saw that show, I laughed out loud. It's as if the Brits did a miniseries in which George Washington was portrayed as having a pre-revolution career as a serial killer. 

I don't know, the TV Historical Documents portray Simcoe as quite evil! And TV would never lie.

Seriously though, you'd think the show could have created a fictional character to portray, given how prominent the real Simcoe is in Canadian history.   

[Malthus]

I don't know, the TV Historical Documents portray Simcoe as quite evil! And TV would never lie.

Seriously though, you'd think the show could have created a fictional character to portray, given how prominent the real Simcoe is in Canadian history.   

My guess is that the creators of the show didn't think many (or any) in their audience would know who Simcoe was. Probably a reasonable assumption, for the most part. 

My guess is his prominence, service with the Queen's Rangers aside, is purely local to southern Ontario.