The Battle of Mackinac Island: A Humiliating American Defeat in the War of 1812 

plenty of men recuperated. peace time deaths from injury and illness were rather low. In war time more pronounced due to the surgeons focusing on battle wounds. and other factors.

What are small mass Graves?

To correctly calculate your odds of victory for every 1 US civilian subtract the registration of 140 US soldiers to the equation.

Lol, there was worse than that. The Battle of Lacole Mills saw the US troops, 4000 strong, flee the battlefield against the British/Canadian forces who only numbered some 500 in total. Major General James Wilkinson, the US commander, was subsequently relieved of command. However, at the start of the battle, there was only 80 Brits against 4000! The reinforcements arrived to bump up to 500 on the british side. Insance odds.

@@thefantasyreview8709 In the first Battle of Lacole Mills a little over 500 British troops and Mohawk warriors under Saliberry crushed Dearborn's force of 6,000 who were firing on each other in the dark.

I would have thought the capture of Washington, eating the presidents lunch, and then burning the White house down in just a raid was far more humiliating, but sensitivities vary.

@@jonathanscott7372 I suppose there were various humiliating defeats for the Americans.

It’s a period appropriate British marching tune called The British Grenadiers.

I'm aware, I was referring to the sound file at 3:20, not The British Grenadiers.

that's the british grenadiers song. not original the total war music

@@newadam573 yes it is

I know, I wasn't referring to the British Grenadiers (the song at the beginning) I was referring to the orchestral music in the background which as far as my research goes, is an original composition for that game's soundtrack. I am referring to a different song entirely.

@Tom Sanders IRA? Irish Republican Army?

@Tom Sanders damn, didn't know the boy scouts ever did anything beyond camping trips really (not that anything is wrong with camping trips).

I'm flattered, thank you so much!

Seconded!

Couldnt agree more.

Not anymore. Today he has 44k subscribers. He literally grows so fast!

Now he's got hundreds of thousands of subs, and he deserves it, damn it.

I mean.... Fort mackinac is on a cliff that overlooks the harbor. Fort George holds no greater strategic significance other than being on slightly higher ground than fort Mackinac. You can't see the water from Fort George, So it would be pointless to build there.

@@darkhobo Except to protect the first fort.

@@darkhobo A great fort overlooking a harbour is pointless if the enemy can just easily sneak up and take the high ground anyway.

@@ANWRocketMan no. You defend the most defensible spot. You dont assume the enemy knows your weakness, or assume they are going to pull off a risky maneuver, like off-boarding their troops against shear cliffs. The Spartans held at the narrowest point at Thermopalye. They knew of the goat path. They knew if the Persians discovered it they would be flanked. They didnt set their shield wall on the goat path. You dont set a defense with the expectation of the enemy flanking you. You set your defense at the best, most defensible spot.

@@darkhobo Sounds like a great way to get yourself flanked

When did we learn that?

Duh! We had that sorted by the Roman invasion!

Most of us learn from our mistakes just well enough. Even though our enthusiastic pride doesn’t want us to dwell on negativities but we all still understand defeats.

@@torinjones3221 over the course of two thousands years of war

@@torinjones3221 Exactly. All evidence from this septic Isle of late has made it clear that we haven't learned a darn thing from our mistakes. If we had, the Tories would never win another election.

Jack Rackam it's my favorite spot on the island!

@@AtunSheiFilms one summer I went to the island with my boyscout troop must have been '05 or '06 long before the fort had been rebuilt. There was only the faintest sign that a building had ever stood there. I climbed to the top of the earthen mound where the walls once were and are again and looked out on the lake as the sun was setting. I felt so at peace surrounded by such beauty. If I had died in that moment, I thought, even at the age of 11 or 12 that would have been a life worth living. Thank you for this video, and reminding me of that time. I may have been a bit melodramatic as a boy but that memory still sticks with.

@@cornerdav oh man. My wife and I got married on devils night and honeymooned on mackinac. Thing is, island mostly closes on Halloween so we had the island more or less to ourselves (there were workers and residents and one other honeymooning couple) it was AMAZING! I highly recommend visiting in the off season.

@michael dowson And Fort Mackinac's predecessor, Fort Michilimackinac just across the straits to the south. At one time, the longest continuous archaeological excavation in North America. There's an interesting story there that took place during Pontiac's Uprising.

Glad you enjoyed it! I went with my girlfriend too, on the trip when we filmed this - it's such a cool place.

@@dominiquecharriere1285 And then, when the fort was inevitably taken after a week or so, the Indians would have swarmed the place and committed atrocities on every member of the garrison, living or dead. The British would not have been able to restrain them -- even if inclined to do so. By not resisting, the LT was presumably able to negotiate the terms of a surrender that included guarantees as to the safety of the garrison and granting of the honors of war.

Dominique Charriere like you wouldn’t do the same? It was not ‘Call of duty’ and battle with keyboards!!

@@roberthaworth8991 Oh.... like when the American forces led by Henry Harrison slaughtered the women and children in Prophetstown a few years earlier?

War of 1812 consisted of many blunders on each side and should never have had occurred. I believe the Americans had different views and style of fighting battles than European countries. Surrender to avoid a massacre of your troops was more common in Europe. I believe the American lieutenant did the correct decision for his men and their families. Would the scarification of these men for American pride desired a few be justified when the island was returned to the USA after the war. The lieutenant should be acknowledged for not wasting the lives of his men in a situation where there was no possible alternative outcome from fighting to the last man.

Better said, than done !@@dominiquecharriere1285

That’s Canada for you.

Lol. I'm not suprised. America is a touchy subject in Canada. They're always trying to take credit from us. The war of 1812, made us Canadians. Before that, US, Canada, Mexico were all Americans. Our brothers attacked us, and we were appalled! The rally cry became We Are Not Americans! And we stated calling ourselves Canadian. I think everything we've done since as a country, including our politeness, is because we're still trying to prove We Are Not Americans. We're better than that.

sarablueshoes lol really? What are they teaching you in Canada? Mexico was never American nor was Canada. Canada became Canada after the rebellions of 1837-38 which lead to the union act of 1841.

sarablueshoes and what credit are the Americans taking from Canada?

@@TheIceman567 North America, dumass. As in the New World or The Americas. Back when there were no countries, only colonies.

Strictly speaking 'gunner' is the basic rank i.e. a private. Ranks above that are lance-bombardier and bombardier then normal army ranks such as sergeant are used.

faeembrugh it’s also used in the same way that anyone serving in the Grenadier Guards is a Grenadier, or the Royal Anglians is an Anglian, or the Irish Guards is a Mick, for example.

@@keithorbell8946 Yeah, to add to that. Literally in this period, the rank of "Private" did not exist. Whilst it might be a term that people were familiar with, ranks were relative to the regiment. However, in this period a person of the Foot Guards, were Guardsmen- not Grenadiers. In this period you were a Grenadier if you were of the rightmost flank company, the Grenadier Company. Additionally, the Grenadier Guards were not given that nickname until after the Battle of Waterloo where they beat the Old Guard and earned their bearskins as a token of defeating the Old Guard who wore bearskins. Regardless, another good example would be the Royal Welch Fusiliers privates were "Fusiliers." Or the His Majesty's Marine Forces (the RMC name of the period) was a "Marine."

Graham the Grenadier sobriquet to the 1st Foot Guards is actually a misnomer, they incorrectly identified the Old Guard regiment they drove back as the Grenadiers a Pied, when in fact it was the Chasseurs a Pied. The Foot guards did wear bearskins before Waterloo, but only for ceremonial purposes and of the British Pattern, rather than the Napoleonic French Pattern they adopted after the Battle of Waterloo.

@@keithorbell8946 And? The "Chasseurs-à-Pied de la Garde Impériale" was still of the Old Guard. Light infantry or not they still wore Bearskins, and were still part of the Old Guard. Also yes they wore them for parade, that is well known. I was distinguishing that they didn't wear them on the field pre-1815. But regardless, that was hardly my point- I was simply correcting an error you made.

Actually, if you look at a list of battles fought by both sides, to include naval engagements, skirmishes, raids, etc, the list of wins/losses for both sides is pretty close to being even. The difference is that one side has numerous allies and an entire empire backing it. The other did not. We just tend to over-fixate on the opening year of the war, which was, in fact, defeat after defeat for the United States. However, by 1813-1814, the United States in many ways was gaining momentum and had won a string of victories against the British.

@@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69 fair point, but it was more the british stopped winning battles and they became draws. by 1814 the americans were making some headway in Canada but the ground they were taking by no means was worth the casulies being inflicted. the Battle of Bladensbug and the burning of Washington were both in 1814. On the other hand, I forgot about the Battle of the Thames, which was probably a more important battle in the long run than any of the other battles. A signal-and sad-defeat of the last gasp of Anglo-Indian cooperation.

The War of 1812 has been called the perfect war. The Americans think we won. The Canadians think they won and the British don't even remember it ever happening.

Thanks for watching!

Love the bridge

St Ignace?

And did he?

aykhan aliyev yes.

It doesn't help that Mackinaw city is across the Straits.

Me too! And yes he did.

Tally wack macinac !

When men wanted to be free the empire lost it all.

We gave up 'Grande Portage" as well. My grandfather was in the WW1 Signal Corp. out of Duluth, even though by WW1 he was homesteading in Canada and beginning to chase grandma in S.Dakota.

But you weren't independent at that time LOL You were British.

@@BlindingGlow That's right. And that is how we maintained our independence. We are still a Dominion and we still recognize the Queen. That's why we went to war in 1914 and 1939. We are independent of the USA.

@Richard Schiffman Actually, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia, we still are.

@Frankly Frank Nobody mentioned anyone named Columbus, kill joy. Do you live near an airport by chance?

Even if you studied every book you still really wouldn't know the truth. Not an insult it's just a fact, winners write history.

The fort literally has the carp animatronic thing about the surrender of the fort. If you’ve been there and haven’t seen it something is wrong my dude...

@@vacayooper4728 The Americans didnt win that war though

Sir Brock and Tecumseh's capture of Detroit was perhaps the most impressive victory of the war.

"Imagine if there had been such a third country in North America" I don't think that would have stood the test of time. The Americans would eventually just have brushed it aside.

Tecumseh tried his best to unify the tribes but came up short with tribal differences and Henry Harrison taking 13 million acres of Indiana from his beleaguered sub chiefs in a phony treaty signing....

Correction Battle of Ft Stephenson was 1813

Are you British?

Refreshing point of view! 90% of the internet is, "My people rule! My ancestors from 4 centuries ago, tell me it is so!!" Humans would be so much happier if they lived in the present, and cared about the future (as much as they care about the past).

For the record, the indigenous peoples allied to or in the uniform of the Crown Forces would have in these actions (Mackinac 1812, 1814) been Anishnaabe and Metis. I'm a descendant of two of them.

Socially Distant , Métis People are from the Red River area in what is now Manitoba and they did not fight of the Crown in this war. The word does not mean “mixed” or non-Status or off-Reserve. Maybe you mean what we call small-m métis.

@@janetteplatana4742 Well, Janette, you might like to tell that to the Metis Nation of Ontario. And I'd guess you're not aware that many western Canadian Metis are descendants of Great Lakes Metis voyageurs who moved west as the fur trade in north-western Ontario died out in the 1830's.

@@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry, beginning a reply to me “Well, Janette” is a signal you want a fight, and I am not interested. Of course, Métis from the Red resettled around the Lakes and other fur trade routes; no argument from me. Nor is it news to me. Claw it back. MNO is problematic. I will refer you to raceshifting.com. I will not reply again. This is my area of funded, academic research, and I ask you to not assume you can school me on it.

@@janetteplatana4742 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bVK6lhpL8iU.html

The subject of Beaumont's experiments tried to run away from him but Beaumont just kept tracking him down and bringing him back.

Always a good day.

The American narrative of..'We won the War of 1812@ when in fact they won 4 naval actions and a battle that was fought after the war was over. The Treaty of ghent restored the status quo ante bellum so essentially the USA achieved none of it's war goals.

@@jamesmaclennan4525 What were the war goals on each side? did both accomplish them? Britain being the most powerful nation on earth with the largest navy at the time im sure they should've accomplished their goals very easily compared to some upstart nation that defeated them 30 years prior. The Americans fought the most power nation to a standstill and put a huge stamp towards the end when they delivered a crushing defeat at New Orleans against a British force composed of veterans from the Napoleonic Wars. I'd say thats a pretty good accomplishment for a nation that had no navy and barely an army. I'd say thats pretty humiliating for the British.

@@stuka80 New Orleans "towards the end"? It was after the end. It was irrelevant, apart from assuaging US pride, especially after battles such as this and the Bladensburg Races. As for British war aims? Simple, maintain the status quo, seeing as Britain didn't want a war in the first place.....we were rather busy with that Napoleon chap. As the status quo was pretty much preserved in the Treaty, I'd say that the UK achieved its aims. If New Orleans hadn't been fought, the war would have been a bit of an embarrassment for the US on land. They did better at sea, but a few minor one sided, ship to ship actions in no way disrupted the total dominance of the Royal Navy.

@@stuka80 Never ask a question in an argument unless you know the answer, my man The Poms achieved their war goals of maintaining the status quo, 1812 was undoubtedly a British victory

@@thehappyaussie8907 This thread is basically composed of British or former Commonwealth trying to convince yourselves with a clear bias. The funny thing is you guys accuse Americans of being delusional and claiming victory and you're doing the same exact thing, so i'm not really surprised. I sensed that with the very first person and everyone else who responded. As far as maintaining status quo as a war aim, you can technically say you achieved it, but you can't claim a victory over the Americans either when the war was fought to a standstill. Especially being the premier power over the day they couldn't subdue a nation that couldn't even compare to Napoleonic France. The British strategical aims were not successfull and as i mentioned, at New Orleans an inferior American force smashed a superior British force and killed its commander. In the moral sense that gives for a very good reason why some Americans would believe that they won it. Complaining about how the battle took place after the treaty....might i remind you, it was the british who attacked New Orleans after the treaty was sign, they initiated the battle, the Americans just ended it in crushing fashion. So like i said, you can't claim that you achieved victory which implies you militarily defeated an enemy, you are being disingenious and very bias clearly by stating that. Its like the biggest meanest guy in the block fighting a kid and the big guy's goal is to not get ko'd. Then after a back and forth fight, claims victory because they didn't get ko'd by the kid, clearly laughable, like this status quo victory claim. The Americans went to war because of British interference of their trade and pressing sailors into the Royal Navy, after the war that stopped. So should the Americans claim victory as well? Yes that is an argumentative question that you can answer.

News travelled slowly in those days.

@@gavinhudson3064 Which is why the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the peace treaty was signed.

Yes it has the Russian revolution

Wrong you were on the losing side in the american war of independence. You were part of british empire and it does count. If not then you cannot count any victories includcing ww1 and 2

@@Mulberry2000 I think you need to read your history again. There was no Canada in 1776. There were many British Colonies. Some revolted. Canada became a nation in 1867 when British colonies United. Since becoming a nation as I stated Canada has had it's defeats in battle, but has never lost a war. It's just the facts.

@@scallywag6768 I know my history for very well i have two degrees in it. Canada did not become independent in 1867, it was formally joined at the hip to the UK as a dominion. You cannot claim victories while being part the british empire and then ignore the ones that were defeats. Canada was part of the war of independence. You are claiming victory for AWI and war of 1812 for canada only,. Canada did not finaly become independent till the 1980s. It is a fact the canadians were on the losing side in the AWI. Stop being jingoistic. It smells.www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion

@@Mulberry2000 the war of independence was between Britain and what was British Colonies. That's a fact. It was a "Revolution" Canada as a nation did not exist. For someone with 2 degrees in history you aren't very bright adding 2+2 and coming up with 5.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is committing an error." Isn't that a Napoleon quote, too?

Neither the US or British have clean hands, both have murderous and genocidal histories.

@@comradecam So does the Chinese,the Indians,the Mongols,the Arabs,the Turks,the Japanese and the Zulus.But please,keep hating on whitey.

Are you British?

@@TheIceman567 English. All the best mate.

timmo491 do you like the USA and Americans?

@@TheIceman567 generally yes i lived there for a while why?

timmo491Cool, I’m American and love the UK. Second, my fiancé is English and she’s pregnant with twins. The first in my family to be born In Britain in over 200 years. 🇬🇧 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤝🇺🇸

Even Michiganders largely ignore the War of 1812. It’s poorly taught in the high schools (and by poorly I mean the Battle of New Orleans and Fort McHenry aren’t even covered). None of my friends knew about it. Heck I literally went to college on an old fort and no one quite seemed to know why the fort was there, and the answer was the War of 1812. Go to the Henry Ford museum and there’s an exhibit on the Revolution, Civil War, and Civil Rights but literally the war partially waged 20 min from there isn’t mentioned.

@@ninjagirl226 oh completely true. But I grew up near Mackinac. It wasn't hard to ignore, but a bit more in your face than the rest of the trolls (people who live south of the bridge).

Hard to believe they thought Napoleon would win at Waterloo and the British would not want their property back.

Do he USA have no ties to Napoleon

True but most of the US ships were bigger than their British adversaries, had larger crews and were made from much stronger American oak trees.

@@grahamhodge8313 - 6 frigates, even big frigates, against the Royal Navy, when RN had what 300 6th rates and better on the water? More? I get it, they were spread out all over the world, but it is a wonder that that USN was ever able to establish tactical superiority and win. Still, the waves were always going to be ruled by Britannia.

I agree. Americans are just ubersensitive to anything negative about their country. So any defeat is perceived as a "humiliation" by them.

@@Dogpilot_NordKS I don't think either of those are humiliating, both involved hard fighting and great risk. Sometimes a loss is a loss, you can either act all sad, or take it and try to do better the next time.

​@@danielt.9101 It's definitely not just Americans lol. You make one lighthearted joke about British food and the lowblow insults about mass shootings or whatever always come out. Talk about ubersensitive! British were just one example. You'll find examples of butthurt people from literally anywhere that there is internet. It's hilarious if you honestly think that that's uniquely American. It's a pretty normal human reaction to criticism lol. Even though it is kinda stupid.

The Broy But our foods nice 😂😜

@@BlindingGlow I don't understand the food comments anyway as the British eat food from all around the world. When you talk about British food specifically and name examples they may be relatively plain but they are generally nice i.e. Shepherds Pie, Beef Wellington, Yorkshire Pudding (with a roast dinner) etc. Most of the time people criticising British food do not mention a specific dish that is supposedly horrible.

Love back to our british family from the USA 🇺🇸🤝🇬🇧

Do you live in England if I may ask?

@@TheIceman567 No, I live in Wales. It seems crazy now when you and I think about in reality, the UK AND USA were almost continuously at each other's throats up until the late 1930s.Oh well, that's family for you 😂😉👍

Graham Jones Jason Plessas cool, I’m American and love the UK. Second, my fiancé is English and she’s pregnant with twins. The first in my family to be born In Britain in over 200 years. 🇬🇧🤝🇺🇸

Graham Jones we also had our moments during WW1 we fought in the same trenches American volunteers in the Royal Air Force

My earliest Canadian family member was one of the British soldiers who helped put down that rebellion.

The Lower and Upper Canadian Rebellions don't get near enough historical attention.

@@davidolie8392 Very true, the only one you hear about is the Red River Rebellion

Well again that’s because nobody win the war of 1812. The real losers were Spain and the natives. And Americans know the war well. Our national anthem is from the war.

@@TheIceman567 Better take a poll on that one. No one Ive ever spoken to knows the war. and the anthem? they could care less about that either. Technically Britain was ahead of the game when they decided it wasn't worth it. Did anyone gain land? No Did Britain defend its colonies? yes. Treaty of Ghent was a nicety of the British. They didn't have to do anything.

Edward Teach lol 😂 first off the war wasn’t over Canada. In fact the only nation that demanded any land was the British an Indian buffer state and Maine and Minnesota. The British even held on to east port Maine until 1818. A poll done I guess so since you haven’t spoken to everybody. The treaty of Ghent was real nice to the USA. They (the British) did first off at Ghent agreed to stop supporting the natives on the frontiers (us goal) two orders in council were repealed during the war. Not one American ship was stopped during the 100 days of Napoleon not an American sailor impressed. The British government agreed to compensate the Us for damages and even agreed to fishing rights for American vessels in canadian waters and the USA walked away with Carleton island in Canada and West Florida. So, very nice nicety by the British for the treaty of Ghent. May I suggest you study the war before you comment next time. Britain did in fact do a lot during Ghent. Because you obviously know nothing of the war either. Really, Ive been to Britain, my fiancé is British not to many Brits know about the war either. So, your saying because of the people you’ve spoken to who know nothing about the war means out of 320 million people nobody else knows the war? That is by far the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

​@@TheIceman567 Better go do some fucking research arseclown567

@@TheIceman567 Did you get your fiancee to like your dogshit post? LOL

Not so. Battle of New Orleans was serious payback. Even Alexander the Great had a bad day now and then. He nearly lost his ass at the battle of the Persian Gate.

@@SilveradoShootingAcademy Except that that battle should never have happened as the war was already over. And unlike the catchy song the British did not 'run all down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico'! Colonel Packenham led an assault on the town during which (leading from the front) he was tragically killed in action. The attack was beaten off and the British forces regrouped to attack again the following day. Before they could, news of the peace treaty arrived and the attack was called off.

@@plymouth5714 I was told that false story in grade school. The truth is the war was not over and the treaty was pending ratification but the British would have reneged it had they won. This is why real history needs to be taught. The battle did determine the outcome of the war.

Rosco P. Coltrane : so how come Canada exists?

That is the danger of victors history. World Conflict history is loaded with only one side.

Not really.

No. Not at all. The war of 1812 had zero to do with the 2nd amendment. Nice revisionist try there demo-socialist.

That makes two of us that saw the movie. I really liked it, Jane Seymour being so easy on the eyes and the filming and music being well done.

I don't think he means it ..to be fair ..but its not aspirated the USA declared war on Great Britain in June 1812 the British and co attack in July 1812 Britain cant be held responsible for lack of communication on the USAs part .. the British were not out to murderer every 1 .. 1 shot from the cannon, and the poor commander knew he was beaten, out numbered, lost the high ground, what could he do ..

You know it was the USA that declared war right? Did the USA declare war on Japan in 1941 but forget to tell Pearl Harbour?

I disagree that he was disrespectful of those that died in those battles. In regards to mocking people of your own nation, this is fine especially if the decision is worth mocking. Custer deserves mockery and I sympathise for every man that he led into death. I mock the chain of command that led to the charge of the light brigade but respect the valour and bravery (even if foolish) of the men that rode in it.

Maybe you're confusing him with John.