I am neither a History major nor an authoritarian on the Revolutionary War. What I am is a person who feels a travesty
of justice has been done to a man that people today still brand “TRAITOR”
I am speaking of one General William Hull; a man wrongly accused and became the scapegoat for all the U.S. did wrong
in preparing and executing its battle plan in the War of 1812.I personally hold Henry Dearborn; Secretary of War and
even President James Madison responsible for what happened to this hero of the Revolution.
I have accumulated information about General William Hull. I am putting together this website based on my research
in the hopes of getting all those who read this a better chance in getting to know a true hero.
He became infamous for his bloodless surrender of Fort Detroit — giving up his superior force to a smaller force
under the command of General Brock in August of 1812.
History hasn't been kind to him because of that act. He was charged with cowardice and treason for his action in Detroit,
court-martialled and sentenced to death, but was granted a last minute reprieve by the president, who cited his meritous conduct
during the American revolution.
It is an interesting contrast between the two leaders — Brock revered throughout Canada and in England, while in
the U.S. the word "Hull" became a derogatory epithet.
He became a convenient scapegoat for all that was wrong with the U.S.'s effort the War of 1812. From Pierre Berton's The
Invasion of Canada, we get a glimpse of the attitude towards Hull and the ordeal he faced following the war:
"When he is as last exchanged (and Prevost is anxious to release him because he believes Hull's return will cause dissension
in America), he faces a court martial that is a travesty of a trial. Here he comes up against his old adversaries: McArthur,
Cass, Findlay, Miller. But his lawyer is not permitted to cross-examine these these officers or to examine other witnesses;
the old general, unschooled in law, must perform the task himself.
"Though his papers were burned on their way from Detroit to Buffalo after the surrender, he is not allowed to examine copies
at Washington. The court is packed against him: Henry Dearborn is the presiding judge. He is unlikely to be sympathetic, for
if the court acquits Hull of the charges of cowardice and treason, Dearborn himself and his superiors in Washington must be
held culpable for the scandal at Detroit.
"The charge of treason is withdrawn on the grounds that it is beyond the court's jurisdiction. Three months later, when
the weary process is at last completed and Hull is found guilty of cowardice, the court adds a rider saying that it does not
believe him to be guilty of treason. There is more to this than simple justice, for the charge is based entirely on the loss
of the Cuyahoga and all Hull's baggage before he knew war was declared. That misfortune cannot be laid at the ill-starred
general's door but at that of Dr. Eustis, the Secretary of War, who was scandalously remiss in informing his outposts of the
outbreak of hostilities.
"Hull, officially branded as a coward, is sentenced to be shot. The President, taking into account the General's Revolutionary
gallantry and perhaps also pricked by a guilty conscience, pardons him. Hull spends the rest of his life attempting to vindicate
his actions. It is an irony of war that had he refused to surrender, had he gone down to defeat, his fort and town shattered
by cannon fire, his friends and neighbours ravaged by the misfortunes of battle, his soldiers dead to the last man, the civilians
burned out, bombed out, and inevitably scalped, the tired old general would have swept into the history books as a gallant
martyr, his name enshrined on bridges, schools, main streets and public buildings. (There is also the possibility that he
might have beaten Brock, though somehow one doubts it.) But for the rest of their lives the very soldiers who, because of
him, can go back whole to the comfort of their homesteads, and the civilians who are now able to pick up the strings of their
existence, only briefly tangled, will loathe and curse the name of William Hull who, on his deathbed at the age of 72, will
continue to insist that he took the only proper, decent and courageous course on that bright August Sunday in 1812.
I hope you enjoy this website as much as I enjoyed creating it. This site and all the information on it would never have
happened if it was not for my wonderful friend and Little Sister Loran. She is the one who encouraged me to try to help this
poor soul. Loran is a unique spirit. Most people look at injustices and say “someone should do something.” People
who talk generally do not act. Loran looks at an injustice and goes out of her way to try to right the wrong, or at least
try to educate those who have an open mind and are willing to listen. She gets people to understand they can make a difference.
She is an amazing person and my life is so much better knowing her.
General William Hull
Revolutionary War Hero
"My God, what shall I do with all these women and children?!"
cried Gen. William Hull. At Fort Detroit, where Hull and his retreating Army had arrived on Aug. 7, 1812, many people stood
to lose members in an enemy attack -- including the general himself, whose daughter and grandchildren were among those sequestered
against the British.
Here, in Hull's own words, are the reasons behind his decision not to attack Fort Malden
when he crossed the Detroit river in July 1812:
"The fort at Malden I was well acquainted with. In time of peace I had often been in it. I knew that it was capable of
being made a place of strength, and that, in contemplation of a war, the British for some time had been using great exertions
to put it in the best possible state of defence.
"I knew, that for near twenty years, a field officer had commanded, and about an hundred regular troops had constantly
been stationed in it; and that there always had been a regular corps of British artillery attached to the command. The question
was, whether, the troops I had under my command, so few of whom had ever been tried, I was to attempt to carry this fortress
with the bayonet?
For myself, particularly, when I considered what would have been the consequences of an unsuccessful attempt, I had a strong
conviction that it would be wrong to make the effort, until we could have the advantage of heavy artillery. But finding that
many of my officers, who had seen no service, were impatient at delay, and were destroying my influence with the army, and
its discipline, by their complaints and censures - for their satisfaction, and not for my own, … I called a council
of war, in which it was decided that no attempt ought to be made on Malden, without the heavy artillery...
It may be said that between the first and second council, the enemy's forces had diminished by desertion. No doubt it had
as to numbers. Great part of the militia had left them, and many of their Indian allies; but the fort of Malden retained all
its strength, and there was no doubt but that their regular forces (of which not an individual had deserted) and their remaining
militia, was sufficient to man it. ...
My opinion was that an attempt on Malden should never be made until there was an absolute certainty of success."
