"The American at the Battle of Waterloo" Topic

"They called him "the American," and while it's unclear whether that was a term of endearment, any fellow British officer using it to disparage Col. William Howe De Lancey risked the wrath of his longtime friend and mentor, Arthur Wellesley—better known as the Duke of Wellington.

De Lancey was at Wellington's side on the day of his greatest triumph—June 18, 1815, the Battle of Waterloo. The duke survived; the American didn't.

Struck by a cannonball, and nursed at the front by his bride of just two months, De Lancey died a few days after the battle. Thanks in part to her best-selling account of her experience (which is being republished to coincide with the bicentennial of the battle), he is remembered today in Britain as one of the great martyrs of that epic day…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Who exactly are "they" who called this Loyalist an American? Deluded, for certain, and incorrect on a lot of levels.

Excuse me for not getting all teary-eyed about this person. He was born before America won its independence, and his family, loyalists every one, bailed out to Canada after Yorktown and then to England when DeLancey was five. Apparently no one among the DeLanceys had any love for "America," and I'm pretty sure we don't think much of them.

I fail to see how he can be considered an "American" when his family was on the Loyalist side of the war for independence, and he was raised in England. Actually, as a real American whose ancestors fought on the side of independence from the Crown's tyranny, I don't give a damn what happened to DeLancey. "Great martyr?" You must be joking…

I fail to see how he can be considered an "American" when his family was on the Loyalist side of the war for independence

Indeed. His family was either Tory or he was an incredibly stupid American patriot. Definitely not an American. In fact, he probably sounded English too. I suppose, "American by birth. Tory by choice."

I am not sure you guys read the article. It is unclear whether he thought of himself as an American – I very much doubt it, but his comrades did – at least as a way of giving him a nickname.

What's not clear is whether the American still identified with his native land in any shape or form, or whether he was self-conscious of his pedigree. His family knew from the American Revolution what it meant to be treated as second-class soldiers. "While people like Oliver De Lancey formed regiments of Loyalists, there was always this sting of the British not treating them as military equals," Schecter says. "And look what happens to his grandson. They still call him ‘the American.' It may have been affectionate, but it may also have been a bit of the same prejudice that's been carried over."

British historians argue that De Lancey's roots would have been irrelevant in the more professional British army of the early 19th century, particularly to the commander in chief. "Wellington did not suffer fools or incompetents gladly," Miller notes. "So the fact that De Lancey lasted for such a long time is in itself an indication of his abilities."

Of course, we will never know what drove De Lancey, or what he felt toward the country of his birth. But there is no doubt that the American remains a hero of one of Britain's finest hours.

I am not sure you guys read the article.

Didn't read. I was only pointing out the possibilities. I didn't have to read the article. I already knew of his story. It's pretty sad really.

I read the entire article. It's safe to surmise, I think, that from the age of five on, DeLancey probably thought of himself as British. Certainly one can believe, based on his family's move after their side lost, that they would prefer a dose of British prejudice, however small it might be, to remaining in an independent America.

Either way, DeLancey was no American, and we wouldn't claim him with a 30-foot barge pole. The Brits are welcome to him, since being hit with a cannonball somehow confers martyrdom. Hey, we could say that about Marshal Bessieres.

Seems to me he was a Loyalist American as opposed to a Rebel American. The fact that the Rebels won doesn't seem all that relevant…

(Re 'Actually, as a real American whose ancestors fought on the side of independence from the Crown's tyranny,' I always found it ironic that Americans called America the land of the free, and that some go on about British tyranny. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, in the US in 1865.)

Not to mention the lack of the tyranny part….

Fooled me. I thought that this was going to be another Brian Williams story.

The word American is not the sole property of citizen's of the United States, they have simply appropriated it. Canada and Mexico are part of North America, indeed for years Canada was refered to as "British North America". Also, why would it be surprising for the Loyalists to continue to think of themselves as Americans? They were called that before the revolution. Just because you are made a refugee doesn't mean they forget about your lost homeland.

Note there is a difference between "American" and "'Murican!" Subtle but important.

"Just because you are made a refugee doesn't mean they forget about your lost homeland."

Well, what a clever spin that is! But please, do go on defending this completely irrelevant person if it makes y'all feel better.

And the comment about "American" belonging to all residents of North America is quite correct, but not, I think, in the context of this discussion--or argument--about the Tory DeLancey family during the war for independence.

I'm not gonna read the article either, but I would like to point out that both Philadelphia and New York have DeLancey Streets.

AND one of my first painted AWI battalions was deLancey's.

I've just finished reading "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" in which the author claims that vampires fought in the AWI on the rebels's side to make America free for vampires.

Fascinating the history they don't teach you at school…….

The Brits are welcome to him, since being hit with a cannonball somehow confers martyrdom.

Nobody in Britain talks about "martyrdom" in that way, and certainly not about soldiers. This is just an American journalist – two if you count Schecter – inventing hyperbole to "sex up" an otherwise only marginally interesting story and try to manufacture some American connection to the Waterloo story.

Quite why one person on this thread has felt the need to get so angry about an article by an American journalist about someone born in America is somewhat puzzling.

Some 65,000 t0 70,000 Americans were forced to flee their country after the American War of Independence because of their loyalty to the crown is hardly what I would call spin. More men from New York State fought for the King than fought against him.

They were called that before the revolution.

No.

They were called colonists or colonials by the British, though they considered themselves Englishmen until the break.

The term Americans came into use during and after the War of the Revolution.

The fact that the Rebels won doesn't seem all that relevant…

The fact that the 'Rebels' won is the point and is entirely relevant.

And I sincerely doubt that de Lancey and his family considered themselves to be Americans at all.

The only true Americans lived on the continent before any colonists arrived so the debate is rather futile!

…and they came eastward from Asia.

The word American is not the sole property of citizen's of the United States, they have simply appropriated it.

Very true.

American = one who is born in the Americas. We have since distilled it down to North, Central or South American.

DeLancy was an American simply because he was born on the North American continent. His allegiance was with the loyalists most probably because his parents were loyalists. Regardless, he was a British officer with good ability for command and like many had his life cut short in war.

Whenever I read posts that show irritation between British and American TMPers, I think of that scene in the classic "Great Escape" movie where Steve McQueen and his two cohorts celebrate the 4th of July with their British fellow PWs.

Really, we have so much in common, not least a shared history that such squabbles do not become us

"Really, we have so much in common, not least a shared history that such squabbles do not become us."

Quite true. But for a while there some of the barbs launched were so very similar to the ones launched against anyone who favors the French side of things, especially this year. I tend not to become unduly bothered about most of the incoming anti-French screeds I've seen here, but make no apologies for my comments about this DeLancey dude.

They were called colonists or colonials by the British

Some of us still do old boy. Same goes for the Australians and New Zealanders.

Borders do not exist, they are an imagination created by man. And since we all live on the same ball floating in space, we should embrace the variety of differences that make the world all that more interesting. Just a thought.

There was an American who fought in the campaign though he was wounded at Quatre-Bras (lower leg). His name was Lt.James Gairdner of the 1st Battalion, 95th Rifles, who's father was a loyal American and lived in the USA, and an aunt 'his father's sister' who lived in England.

He fought in the Peninsula from January 1812, at Cuidad Rodrigo, Badajoz (wounded three times in the leg, arm and face), Salamanca, Vittoria (wounded severely), Pyrenees, Nivelle, Nive and Toulouse.

An American fighting bravely in the finest of regiments (9 clasps to his Military General Service medal and he was also awarded the Waterloo medal.

Paul :)

interestin article. but could you imagined a regiment of "pennsylvania long rifles
' in Napoleon's army?

As an Englishman, I find it somewhat inconsistent that some Americans deride those who remained loyal to the lawful, existing government in 1775 in the face of armed rebellion, yet express similar hostility towards those who took up arms in 1861 when they felt they were being treated unfairly…

I recall seeing an American tourist nearly suffer an apoplectic fit on the battlefield of Queenston Heights upon reading on a plaque that Roger Sheaffe, who succeeded Isaac Brock in command of the British/Canadian troops, had been born in America, calling him a 'traitor' &c.

I was tempted to remonstrate with him that a man could hardly be a traitor to a country that did not exist at the time of his birth and of which his family chose not to accept citizenship, but wished to avoid the guilt of causing his death by inducing an hysterical, historical heart attack.

interestin article. but could you imagined a regiment of "pennsylvania long rifles' in Napoleon's army?

The French, while manufacturing and possessing an excellent rifle, didn't particularly care for it.

In short, an American infantry regiment armed with the Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle at Waterloo probably would not have done too well.

And if you're referring to the long rifle and American rifle units being employed in the War of the American Revolution, riflemen had to be supported by musket and bayonet armed infantry, as Morgan's riflemen were in the battles of Saratoga.

The rifle was slow to load and could not be used with a bayonet, which gave it a distinct disadvantage in a melee or close combat with musket and bayonet armed infantry.

Washington never wanted more than 1,000 riflemen with the army at any one time. The corps d'elite of the Continental Army was the Continental Corps of Light Infantry-famous for successes at Stony Point and Yorktown primarily using the bayonet.

And if you're referring to the old, inaccurate legend of American riflemen being responsible for the British defeat at New Orleans, then that is nothing but myth. American artillery and musket-armed infantry were responsible for that win.

For the rifle and the Continental Army, see Harold Peterson's The Book of the Continental Soldier. For New Orleans see Robin Reilly's The British at the Gates, the definitive history of that campaign and battle.

Interesting Kevin.

Amicalement
Armand

"As an Englishman, I find it somewhat inconsistent that some Americans deride those who remained loyal to the lawful, existing government in 1775 in the face of armed rebellion, yet express similar hostility towards those who took up arms in 1861 when they felt they were being treated unfairly…"

Bingo.

While not at Waterloo, another American-born officer served both in the Peninsula under Wellington and in North America.

General FP Robinson was born in New York and served in the British Army during the War of the Revolution and moved to England when the war was over.

He made an interesting observation of the Peninsular War in 1812-1813:

'…be assured we injure the people much more than [the French] do…The French demand heavy contributions which fall on the wealthier classes only, but they punish plundering in the most severe manner except where it is intended as a punishment for fruitless resistance-wherever we move Devastation marks out steps-The Portuguese are an army of Thieves, the Spaniards have no feeling for their Countrymen & our soldiers would be worse than either were it not for the severe Discipline.'

Quite interesting too!.

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting quote that, Brechtel.
It's always well to remember that the reality may not be as black & white as some historians ask us to think.

Robinson?

There were plenty more Generals who saw much more of campaigning in the Peninsula than he did, who would go on to say differently. He did not join the army in Spain until late 1812 where his first experience of the campaign was the retreat from Burgos. His other experiences would be the looting of the French baggage train at Vittoria and the siege of St. Sebastian, all of which weren't exactly high points for British discipline. Nevertheless, for him to say that the British were worse than the rest is . They did their share of looting yes, but in the grand scale of things, the French were the masters of the world in that respect. Of the 18 months that Robinson campaigned, he was recovering from wounds for five months of it and in cantonments for a further 8 months, so his observation should be taken in context.

Much better to highlight the fighting and leadership qualities of the man in the brief spell that he had in the theatre, which were exemplary

Paul :)

@ Brechtel

Where did you get the observation by Gen. Robinson? I'd like to find more of his writings.

I've done some preliminary research & he commanded a brigade at Vitoria, where his brigade took Gamarra on the French right flank, obviously impressing The Duke enough to recommend to a command position in the War of 1812. Here he subsequently fought at Plattsburgh. Though I guess you know all this.

I must admit I'd never heard of him before your reference. There are quite a few generals under Wellington (our own Thomas Brisbane for one) who were highly competent but tend to disappear in the light shone by their illustrious leaders' halo.

Of course before the Colonial Rebellion, Americans referred to the real inhabitants of North America….

I found the reference in John Elting's Swords, on page 516.

The quote is taken from CT Atkinson's article 'A Peninsular Brigadier' found in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, XXXIV, number 140 (London, December 1965), page 165.

Atkinson put together the letters of Robinson under the same title in 1956. The book is listed on Google Books, but there is no preview nor is the entire book available there, unfortunately.

All for the King's Shilling: The British Soldier under Wellington, 1808–1814 by Edward J. Coss is cited for at least mentioning Robinson and I've put that on my list to get to see what's in it. This book was published in 2010.

If you find anything more on Robinson could you post it?

Thanks, Brechtel.

The Canadian links (he was Lt Governor of Upper Canada for a short while) might be worth pursuing.
At any rate, I'll do a bit of searching.

Shame that it wasn't mentioned that Robinson also said

"Although our people were destroyed by the enemy in such numbers before they entered the town (San Sebastian)-yet once in, all the Frenchmen they overtook were made prisoners-hardly a man being Killed-what other troops in the whole world can act thus….[as for valuables] what the fire spared our men took, the plunder was immense."

But his letters also show an irrational side:

Again, after San Sebastian he accuses General Hay of being "a fool and I verily believe, with many others on my side, an errant Coward – That he is a paltry, plundering old wretch is established beyond all doubt – That he is no Officer is as clear, and that he wants spirit is firmly believed, ergo, he ought not to be a General"

Paul :)

@ Brechtel.

I've trolled my limited library: Robinson gets a mention in Elting's "Amateurs to Arms' , of course. And a "by-line" hear & there in books on the Peninsular War. The results of my internet search, whilst hardly exhaustive, I've posted on a separate thread.

Thanks for stimulating a little "research project" for me.

'…for him to say that the British were worse than the rest is Bleeped text. They did their share of looting yes, but in the grand scale of things, the French were the masters of the world in that respect'

All troops looted if given the chance or if they were slackly commanded and got out of hand.

The 'international champions' though were probably the Cossacks. The French are generally accused as they were involved in almost all of the campaigns of the period, but the British are far from innocent as some want to portray.