Every time I read about the "legend" of Laura Secord I remember that history is written by the victors. The legend of Laura Secord bears striking similarity to the legend of Madelaine de Vercheres. research into both women is chary of actually committing to a statement along the lines of: yes, this did happen.
This is rather odd really. History is not often shy of reporting the facts. Either a battle happened or it did not. History likes to rely on source documents. It is not given to conjecture.
It is, however, prone to bias.
I remember learning about Laura Secord in grade 8. That would have been in the early 1980's in Dundas. I had an amazing teacher. I fell in love with history that year and the history we learned was that of Ontario. We learned of MacKenzie and corduroy roads and Lord Durham and, yes, Laura Secord.
I pricked up my ears at Laura Secord. Even then it was evident to me that much of history was about this man or that man and here, large as life, was a heroine - sort of. The heroine got kind of clouded with stories about chocolate, cows and ice cream. The linear fact-like reporting of deeds long done and immutable became softened. Laura Secord was, and was not a heroine. Maybe she had been a heroine. Maybe she had been 18 at the time, maybe she had been older. Even in grade 8 I knew that was a lot of maybe.
Elizabeth I and Victoria are not subjected to such a wave of maybe. King Jadwiga of Poland does not suffer from insecurities brought on by the specter of legend. These women are assured a place in history that is free of ambiguity and does not dare to bring ice cream into the story.
Yet, Madelaine and Laura are "legends". They are not heroes, as is our man Brock, nor rebels, as in MacKenzie, simply legends, like the Maid of the Mist. What brought that on?
When we hiked past DeCew House back in June of 2010, I got my Laura Secord facts straight. She was 38 when she brought the warning. There was no cow. She was the mother of 7 children. She was the wife of one of Bulter's Rangers. She'd rescued him after he was wounded at Queenston Heights. Laura Secord come across as being anything but flighty and nervous.
So why the mystery?
Why was she in her 80's before anyone acknowledged the deed? Why, even then, was there ambiguity? You'd think that a government letter saying thank you would do the trick in the eyes of history.
Well, yes, and no. I read my Pierre Burton on the subject and even Pierre, with his meticulous attention to people and motivations and backstory seemed a bit miffed with Laura Secord. The main issue, it seems, is that she never told a clear story concerning how she got the information. In fact, her story changed over the years. It never included a cow or a box of chocolates but the source, ahh the source, that was always protected.
Now I'm personally not sure why that is such a big deal. Where she heard the story of the impending attack is really not important. The fact is that, having heard it and having determined that there was no one else to bring warning, she went. General Fitzgibbons was clear on the fact that she had brought warning. He remained her supporter in this and helped petition that government for that letter of recognition. Yet history balked because she was a woman and because it did not have the source.
If Pierre Burton were still alive I might be tempted to sit down with him and say: Pierre, let's think about this for a moment.
In 1813 the Niagara Penninsula was a mish mash of conflicting loyalties. family ties and friendships crossed the border. Laura's own father had fought the British in the American War of Independence. In 1813 the war in Niagara was shifting from being a military matter to being one involving civilians. Feeling ran high. There were trials for treason. The penalty for treason was death. Such feeling was not likely to dissipate over the course of a generation. People tend to carry grudges.
That means that naming her source Laura Secord most likely would have gotten someone in to a whole lot of trouble. The face of that someone may have been Kith or Kin or distant relation of one or the other but in the end the result would still be the same - bad blood. No one could fault Laura for warning FitzGibbons. She was a decided loyalist. She acted accordingly; however, by naming her source, there she would have acted in error. That would have tarnished her reputation and, most likely, that of her family.
Six of Laura's 7 children were girls.
THINK about it.
Of COURSE she never named her source. Sheesh!
Heroism is a strange thing. Bringing the warning was brave. It was heroic.
She was 38. Six of her seven children were girls. She outlived her husband by 27 years. He, wounded in the war, never was rich, nor was she. Her life, lived to the ripe old age of 93 can't have been all tea and roses. She was 85 before she was publicly recognized as a heroine.
Yet, she would have always known the truth of it.
Thankfully, history seems to have made its peace with Laura Secord. The mists of "legend" are lifting. The same thing is happening with Madelaine de Vercheres. I count this as a good thing since I remember clearly that feeling of disappointment I encountered when my heroine got bogged down in ice cream and chocolate.
When I teach my children their heroes and their heroines will shine. Brock Tecumseh and Secord were both products of their time. They made decisions out of the strength of their characters. They turned history. There is nothing ambiguous about that.
http://www.niagaraparks.com/heritage-trail/laura-secord-homestead-history.html
http://www.warof1812.ca/laurasecord.htm
http://www.canadiangenealogy.net/heroines/madeleine_de_vercheres.htm
http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Daughter_of_Time.html?id=SM5HKlhuOEEC&redir_esc=y
