plan. i think there's a lot of good ideas in there, but it won't give us 1.5, 2 million jobs according to the economic analyses. but if you want to return to full employment economy and 240,000 jobs a month. i think we average 220,000 jobs for eight years, if you want to strip to flush the debt and get including going again. and so, kenneth rogoff at harvard recommends that since some people say well if we lower the mortgage rate, if we bring the mortgage down the value of the house, then the people rule the mortgages will lose money. who's going to compensate them and what is it going to be? rogoff has suggested that the banks are the people who ultimately hold the mortgages

instead of writing them down, just cut them in half by taking an ownership position in the house. so that when the house was ultimately sold, the people who issued the mortgage were on the mortgage will share in the profit and you get the same practical result. you no longer have a bad debt on the books. ..

from archives to recount the world 1812 that put the united states against britain. several accounts of the war andt aflame and battles on lake champlain and dandridge jackson's command of american forces of the final major battle of the war the battle of new orleans, which took place on >> o generally, 1815 petraeus to mckeithen and hinchey for coming to the tattered cover. tonight we welcome walterntroduh borneman to introduce his bookt 1812 the war that forge a nation. lit the audacious little hot usa in brish emclear its last war against our current trend of the anned h empire. and often overlook the war that spanned half a continent from o mackinac island rlto new orleans

and lake champlain to horseshoes bend. now it's presented a historical sweeping narrative of the war and its importance to america's early development. he is the author of "saga -- alasa, saga of a bold land" and practices law here in colorado. will you please welcome walter borneman. [applause] >> thank you, sally, very much. i appreciate that gracious introduction and i appreciate all of you being here this evening. coming to the tattered cover is always like coming home for me and it's nice to be here. you know, those of you who were here for my history of alaska a couple of years ago might ask the question, how did walter borneman get from a history of alaska to the war of 1812? it's really not that surprising. my academic training has been in american history and this is a period of time that i've always

found really fascinating. it's a period of time that's kind of lost between the american revolution and the civil war. you don't really hear much about it. but if you start to peel away the layers of this particular era, i think there are a lot of things that kind of stand out, two in particular. this is really a period of time when the american nation really starts to solidify itself. and it's also a period of time when the united states really kind of sets itself up for what's going to be another half century of westward expansion. let me suggest to you that in the early years of the 19th century, the american union was still very tenuous, still untested and still far more confederation than it was union. i don't think that any single incident emphasizes this better than the story with which i begin my book, that of erin burr and his infamous conspiracy. he had teamed up with general

wilkinson, the man who by the way had given zebulon pike his orders to come to colorado and explore the louisiana territory. he teamed up with burr and in may of 1804, aaron burr, the sitting vice president of the united states and who by the way had not been renominated for that office, received a late night caller and it was none other than general wilkinson. never mind the fact that they were old friends. with burr's political power apparently destroyed, what could he and general wilkinson, commander of american forces at new orleans, possibly have to talk about? well, no record remains of their conversation, but subsequent events suggest that the man who was in fact himself a paid spanish agent was now on burr's doorstep suggesting to the disgruntsled political man, a way to steal an empire aware

from both american and spanish influences. the long and the short of it is burr was arrested and arraigned before a grand jury in kentucky on charges of raising troops for illegal purposes. burr's lawyer was a young up and comer, henry clay. the grand jury dismissed the charges but no sooner had he left town with two boats he had purchased from andrew jackson than a presidential proclamation reached jacksonville. jefferson called for the arrest of all of those involved in the conspiracy. burr was arrested and take on the richmond to stand trial. he was acquitted only because chief justice john marshal chose to define treason has narrowly requiring an act of overt war. meanwhile, andrew jackson, who had come unconfidentably close to burr's web, wrote a friend, i am more convinced than ever that

treason was never intended by burr, but if ever it was, you know my wishes that he may be hung. old hickory was never one to mince words. so louisiana and the mississippi valley still belonged to the united states. the fledgling american union remained in tact. but i suggest to you that the plotting of a disgruntsled politician and an unscrupulous general had shown how tenuous it was. within a short time, growing pains along its entire border from british canada to spanish florida, as well as on the high seas, would push the country into war. when that war came, aaron burr faded in the shadows but many others who had played a role in the match nations of what came to be called the burr conspiracy would be center stage, including andrew jackson, henry clay and general wilkinson. let's talk about the reasons for this war. i think there were probably

threefold. one was this issue of impressment. the royal navy at this point is really engaged in a battle for the high seas with napolean's france and all of europe is really tied up in this huge struggle. what the royal navy is doing, they need sailors for their ships. so what they're doing is stopping american ships and seizing basically kidnapping the terms impressment, kidnapping american sailors who have just the faintest degree of british blood in their vains off of those american ships and forcing them to serve in the royal navy. at the same time the united states is trying to trade with france was is gray britain going to allow that? no. they are seizing american ships and are trying to trade with france. at the same time, france is saying, well, wait, we don't want the americans trading with great britain, we'll seize the ships as well. so this young american nation is

caught in the crossfire between great britain and france and the seizure of ships is another reason that the united states starts to call for war. in fact, at one point the american congress, and we'll talk in a second about howdy individualed they were on the whole subject of war, but at one point the american congress debates issuing letters of mark and repiesal, outfitting privateers to go out on the high seas to attack british and french ships. so you can see there's a lot going on on the oceans. the third reason that the united states finally, and reluctantly declares war is a lot of people, particularly in the western part of the united states still have a hankering for canada. you may recall your revolutionary war history that there were invasions led by benedict around who marched on canada in 1775. this lust for canada really is not abated and in 1812, henry

clay and his war hawks out in kentucky and tennessee really also want canada for themselves. henry clay boasts hey, the militia of kentucky alone can enough to invade canada and reduce it to american interests. well, as we'll see in a moment, that never happened. so all of these reasons really combined together and finally president james madison, in the spring of 1812, is sort of very reluck tamentsly pushed into issuing a declaration of war. i think he's pushed into that in part by political pressure from henry clay and senators in the western states whose electoral votes in the back of his mind he's thinking that he may need in the fall election of 1812. so madison reluctantly sends a declaration of war to congress. congress debates it at some length and it becomes the closest vote on a declaration of war in united states history. never mind what we've skeen in the post world war ii period

where really the president almost without congressional involvement takes the lead in terms of executive actions in korea, vietnam and now in iraq. in 1812, congress really took its war powers under the constitution seriously and debated it at great extremes. of course, finally, the senate vote by the way was 19-13, a very close vote in those days. again, it was the narrowest vote for war in u.s. history. ok, in june of 1812, the united states has indeed declared war on great britain. what happens then? the united states, for this war is poorly prepared, very poorly prepared militarily. the military is underfunded. we have about 12 capital ships against the might of the british navy. i mean, at some levels how dare the united states have the audacity to declare this war. but i think one person in virginia sort of summed it up best and said after all of these

grievances, impress sent, seizure of ships and kind of this lust on the side for canada, after all of those things, it had become a matter of national honor that the united states should declare war and move forward with that. so however unprepared the united states was, that's in fact what they did. of course, the first thing they do in the summer of 1812 is say, ok, even if we're sort of reluctant getting into this war, and even if we're not too militarily prepared, maybe by just going ahead and declaring war great britain will back off on some of these issues on the high seas and maybe we can go ahead and seize part of canada. well, of course what happens is that three invasion attempts in the summer of 1812 to invade canada from detroit, from niagara falls and north into lake sham plain all fail.

now, that brings us back to zebulon pike in the summer of 1813. all of us here 234 colorado and many across the country associate pike with the high mountain in colorado that bears his name. well, as paul harvey would say, here's the rest of the story. pike, after his travels out in the west, remained in the army and remained a regular in the army and by 1812 and 1813, he's a brigadier general leading an invasion of canada from sacramentos harbor on lake ontario toward york. york in those days, today it's called toronto, but york was the capital of upper canada. today we call it ontario. pike is leading this expedition, his troops land and there's only a few british regulars. again, the context of this war

is that great britain is heavily engaged in europe with napolean. for the first couple of years of the war, the only troops that it can spare over here are second-class regiments and not the cream of the crop, because they're engaged fighting in polian in europe. so a few troops of british regulars flee before the americans at york and a few militia are left to defind the town. pike's troops advance and let me read you a couple of paragraphs of what happens. so pike's troops, with the aid of broadsides from chancey's fleet, captured two aging artillery batteries and advanced to the ramparts of york's western garrison. as the mesh formed to make an assault, pike sat down to

question a captured militia sergeant. what is your whole strength and where are the regulars? sir, the prisoner replied, i am a british soldier. in that instant, a terrible roar came from the ramparts above. the retreating canadians had detonated the underground powder magazine that held barrels on barrels of gun powder. the result was an explosion of volcanic proportions that shook the earth. pike's prisoner was killed instantly. pike turned slightly to shield himself from the blast but was struck in the head by a huge boulder. there was no question that the injury was mortal. pike the explorer, who had tried to climb the colorado peek that now bears his name, was killed by rockfall on the shores of lake ontario. somewhat ironic. with him seems to have died any semblance of american discipline. of course, what happens is that

pike's troops, without his leadership, went on either by accident or on some lower orders, to burn the government buildings at york. we think about the war of 1812 and talk about the burning of the white house and the advance on washington and all that happened in 1814 and we ask ourselves, how could the british march into our capitol and set it aflames? it was really retaliation for a series of tit for tat that began in fork ontario when the government buildings were burned there by pike's troops. after that, the canadians burned buffalo. americans retaliated by burning a place called long point in ontario. this went on back and forth across the border until by the time the british fleet arrived in chesapeake bay in 1814, they're out for blood and retaliation. and that's one of the reasons, the main reason that when the british troops marched on

washington they set fire to the capitol building and the white house. well, the issues and campaigns that go on in terms of the invasion of canada kind of have a lot of missteps, if you will. and general wilkinson, the guy that was plotting with aaron burr to steal an empire, is given command of american troops along the st. lawrence river. and in 1813, their plan is to march down the river and attack montreal. just to give you a little bit of flavor for what it was like in those days on the battlefield, let me read you a couple of other paragraphs that come from my description of what's the battle of chrysler's farm. what's happening is the americans are advancing down the river, down the st. lawrence river to montreal, and the canadians are sort of mounting an action on their rear guard, trying -- it's a little more

than guerrilla tactics, but they're trying to create as much confusion in the american's rear as possible. wilkinson says i've had enough and orders a commander named boyd to turn around with about half of the troops and attack the canadians behind him. at daub the next day, boyd, the american commander, should have had second thoughts. perhaps he did. two years before at tippecanoe, he helped harrison establish a strong defensive position and wait to be attacked. but now on the st. lawrence, his commanding general was no harrison. and was ordering him to attack. so under gray skies that momentarily held their reign, boyd's troops moved back upriver to engage morrison's forcen't about 2:00 p.m. on the afternoon of november 11, the american units massed in a line of trees on the eastern edge of the farm. here was one last chance to postpone the encounter, but boyd pushed onward.

the center of his line, the 11th and 14th infantry regiments stepped clear of the trees and strode forward across the field. the americans, one british observer noted, came on in very gallant style. initially there was much cheering on the american side. reports suggested that they faced only local militia. a few rounds might sweep them from the field. but the opposing ranks stood silent and still. these were not raw militia or even canadian troops. but rather seasoned british regulars of the 89th and 49th foot regiments. calm was the order of the day. even in the face of erratic fire from the americans. the british troops remained silent and stock still, firing not a shot, until the americans had closed between 100 and 150 yards. then came the chilling commands from their officers. make ready, a short pause. present. two heart beats now. fire! the result was a withering

shower of bullets that hit the american lines with a devastating effect. one american officer reported that the british line was the most admireable i had ever seen and its fire was in regular volleys. well, the americans suffered a major defeat and general wilkinson's biographer went on to say never have so many americans been beaten by such inferior numbers on foreign soil. that kind of military battle and that kind of back and forth along the canadian border is really what epitomizes this war on land for most of its three years on the high seas we have a different story. many of you associate with war with the u.s.s. constitution, old ironsides gets its name in this war. and there's the story of james lawrence and the chesapeake. been out and heard the expression, don't give up the ship. well, that comes from this war. james lawrence is dying on the quarter deck of the chesapeake

and he says to his crew, don't give up the ship. of course, what makes that slogan famous is that a few months later, a young lieutenant named oliver perry makes a battle flag out of those words, flies them from the mast of his brig on lake erie and chases the british off lake erie. on the high seas, because great britain has this huge fleet and the americans are outnumbered, there's not a lot that the americans can do. in fact, by 1814, the british really have a strangle hold all along the east coast of the united states. a blo al qaeda that's really shutting -- blockade shutting down american commerce. there are two battles that occur, one on lake erie, the other on lake champagne that have strapiegic importance to the lar. lake erie makes for american control of lake erie and allows the americans to recapture

detroit. lake champagne, fort mchenry, the writing of the national anthem, all of that is part and parcel to a major british invasion force that's moving up lake champagne south into upper new york state and only the victory of the american navy on the lake defeats the british and makes the british general turnarounds because he doesn't have control of his supply lines and control of the adjacent waters of the lake. so those two things as far as naval victories are relatively important to the war. and then, of course, what finally happens, we've all sung that johnny horton sung about the bat of of new orleans. andrew jackson, by the fall of 1814, is down in the gulf coast of the united states, he's fought his way through a native american civil war, the battle of horse shoe bend in alabama.

wouldn't up in mobile and after the british evacuate and leave washington and baltimore, having been repulsed in september of 1814 from fort mchenry, where are they going to strike next? jackson's not sure. he thinks it might be mobile. there's other people who think it might be new orleans. and through that fall he tries to get intelligence and finally learns that the british fleet is sailing for new orleans. there's one thing very different now. remember that war in europe, france versus great britain? well, napolean has been defeated the first time. he's going to come back and have a second round atwater loo, but defeated in present-day germany and after that with napolean at bay, what does great britain do? they say, wait a minute, for two years the united states has been kind of pulling our tail over

there in north america. what have those upstart americans been up to? and by 1814, with napolean at bay, great britain can transfer a lot of regular troops, the best of the best, duke of wellington's brian rosser in law, sir edward packingham is put in charge of an expedition to capture new orleans. new orleans, this is less than 10 years after the louisiana purchase, and new orleans and louisiana is really just sort of a sliver of american territory stuck down there between the spanish owning the floridas, and i say that plurally because it's west and east florida at that point. and texas and all of that area to the west. so the spanish, whose ally are they? british allies. duke of wellington has been fighting in spain trying to help defeat napolean's troops there. so they are allies and great britain basically attacks new

orleans to control that great mouth of the mississippi river and some would argue, we'll talk about that in a second, try to recapture the louisiana territory for spain, which has sort of been coerced to sell it to france and you'll remember that napolean sold it to the united states. but great britain never recognized that. so in the fall of 1814, great britain is attacking new orleans, trying to capture it. what does jackson do? he has a few regulars, some bayou pirates, jean lafeet. there's militia, local troops. they all come together outside of new orleans and early in january, 1815, they defeat the british. packingham linesis troops up row afro and in the fog moves across the battlefield. and the fog lifts and the

american fire from behind those cotton bails, well, at one point the american line opens up and devastating fire breaks down the british troops. and it's after the treaty of gent, because that treaty has already been signed and this battle is fought afterwards but nobody knows that because of the slowness in communications. what we have, even though this war has sort of been fought piecemeal and, you know, the navy does that and the army has some defeats. wow, out of this battle of new orleans comes this new sense of flarble identity that really, i think, sort of increases the american psyche and says, by golly, all of this hasn't been pretty. but in the end we've won. and let me just say that after all of it was said and done, after all of those battles, let me talk a little bit about

what's been accomplished and answer the question why the war of 1812 matters. well, the war has been waged, president madison told congress, in his message delivering the treaty of gent for ratification, with a success that is the natural result of the wisdom of the legislative councils, the patriotism of the people, of the public spirit of the militia and the valor of the military and naval forces of the country. boy, there's some spin. because those who chose to pick apart the president's statement had ample fodder. had there not been a divided congress at the start? yes. a whole region ambivalent, some were talking about -- even trading with the enemy? yes. countless militia that refused to engage or leave their individual states? yes, indeed on all those counts and more. but when all was said and done, who wanted to remember that now? who would not be an american,

asked niles weekly register, no one was the reply. long live the republic. so what did the war accomplish? the spring of 1812, before the war was declared. john calhoun of south carolina wrote to his cousin asserting that the coming war "will be a favorite one with the country. much honor awaits those who will distinguish those." he was certainly wrong on the first point, it wasn't a favorite, but there was much truth in the second. many plants would be heard from again and again. some history couldn't seem to get rid of. general wilkinson danced with the devil and escaped another court-martial for the failed st. lawrence campaign before heading back to the intrigue of the southwest. winfield scott received the news of piece one rank shy of his goal and would have to wait awhile before obtaining his wish of three stars and lieutenant general. two generals rode the war of

1812 to the presidency, though harrison died of pneumonia a month after his inauguration. the other general was andrew jackson. old hickory received a plurality of the popular vote for president three times. being denied the office the first time in 1824 after failing to win a majority of the electoral college. in between that day on the plain at chalmet and the 1824 election, jackson took the lead in wrestling the floridas away from spain. biographer robblets remny recounts the story that a woman in north carolina where he had grown up ex-claimed, what? jackson up for president? jackson, andrew jackson, the jackson that used to live next door in salisbury? if andrew jackson can be president, anybody can. such was the power of the enduring fame of the battle of new orleans.

so what did the war accomplish? why did it matter? in the dismal december of the war's second year, president madison addressed congress and tried to put the best possible light on the trials and tribulations the nation had endured on the battlefields. the war, with its fositudes, is illustrated the capacity of the united states, to be a great, a flourishing and a powerful nation. now, for whatever madison's shortcomings as a charismatic leader, he had been proven correct and could justly don the cloak of victor. there was to be no better evidence than that than in james monroe's election to the presidency as madison's monroe's re-election without opposition. james monroe presided over a national coalition that was

tested and fired. in the summer of 1823, scarcely 11 years after he waited for peace commissioners to appear, john quincy adams, now monroe's secretary of state, spoke for a nation much surer of itself than it has now. in the face of russian territorial claim that is were extending down the coast, adams informed the russian ambassador that the united states strongly contested the right of russia to any territorial claims to north america. six months later, they were broadened and incorporated to the annual message to congress. monroe went on to warn european governments to keep the hands off of the affairs of newly independent governments. these noncolonization and nonintervention stages were the twin cornerstones of what came to be called the monroe doctrine. so i asked you again, what has

the war accomplished? one american historian wrote the bonfire t cannons, the church fire that rebelled the peace against constituted less a shout of triumph than a sigh of relief. at first it was definitely true. there's an economy to rebuild. but once the economic resurgence was in progress, they had a swagger of triumph. americans forgot the war's disheartening defeat and chose instead to remember the opponents -- don't give up the ship, the glories of old ironside and, of course, jackson's stand before new orleans. jackson himself jumped on this tealing in a proclamation he ordered read do his army near new orleans on january 21. praising the courage, the patriotism, and patience under hardships seeing the truth,

jackson proclaimsnate is of different states acting together for the first time in this camp differing in habits and in language, instead of viewing the circumstances the german struck and division, you have made them the source of an honorable imewe lation. from the seeds of discord itself have reaped the fruits of an honorable union. in those words, jackson seems to have sensed what the war meant to the nation. so why does the war of 1812 happen? plenty of missteps. the united states cast aside its quote of colonial adolescence and stumbled forth on the world stage. to be sure, there will be family quarrel, one of which would threaten to tear asunder two generation camps. after the war of 1812, there was no longer any doubt that the united states of america would become a force to be reckoned with in north america and at times throughout the world. the war of 1812 created a new

generation of leaders. it unified the could wantry with new sense of national purpose. and it set the stage for western expansion from mack gnaw island to the gulf of mexico. why does the war of 1812 matter? in the most simple of term, i can only refer you to the tite of my book. the war of 1812 matters because it's the war that forged the nation. thank you. [applause] i would be glad to take your questions. since we have c-span here tonight, just wait for the microphones to come around. we'll be glad to answer a few questions. yes, sir n the back?

[inaudible] >> that's a good question. that particular monument you refer to is between the niagara falls and the niagara river flows tout lake ontario. i think the question of how it affected canada -- at the beginning of the war, there were many people in the united states who were sure that all we had to do was march american troops on to canadian soil and the canadians would agree as liberators and say, oh, thank goodness, you threw off the yolk of the british crown and revolution and by golly, we'll join you and do it now. that was not the case. both at detroit and niagara and queenston heights, the canadian as well as the regulators that were there, the militia, fought furiously and had no intention

of becoming part of the united states. now, from the american perspective, even years later after the civil war, there's still this thought in the american congress that, gosh, we'd like to get canada some way and one of the suggestions in congress at that point is that great britain will be less than neutral and they hated raiders like alabama and shenandoah. but some people in congress suggested that great britain should still give canada the united states at that point as part of reparations for those claims -- those ships. other questions? yes, sir? >> i wanted -- i wondered if you could speak a little more as to why the war is so important to the western exsnangs >> the question is western expansion and why it's important. there's a short term answer and a what if answer. the short term answer is that

what happens that all of these territories -- there's a steal mate on many parts, the real losers in this war are native americans, the native american who is in the northwest have been pushed out of the northwest territories and in the deep south have been pushed out of what's now alabama and mississippi. so what happens is in the northwest and the deep south, very quickly after the war of 1812, there's a whole slew of new states -- indiana, illinois, alabama that come into the union. great britain in the treaty again really tried to say somewhat, i think, maybe out of a noble purpose to help the native americans but more than likely because politically they wanted to constrain the united states territorially, great britain said in the treaty again -- all of the foundries, all of the native american

claims, everything else will be put back in the end of the war just like they were in the beginning -- status quo. well, that just wasn't going to happen. there's no way that harrison's victory in the northwest or jackson's victory at horse shoe bend in alabama and the subsequent expansion in to those areas by american settlers -- there's no way that that was going be turned back. so that's the short term, western expansion. the long term is afternoon interesting what if? great britain never recognized the treaty of the louisiana purchase. so what that meant is if in fact great britain had prevailed in new orleans, if jackson had not won in new orleans and the british had ended up with control of new orleans, even though there's the treaty of gents -- it's talking about to put things back the way it was. the way it was in british eyes was that spain control all of the louisiana territory.

so if jackson had not prevailed in new orleans, they had better control of the louisiana territory which would have hampered western expansion beyond the mississippi. that doesn't happen to the states east of the mississippi coming in quickly. this war sort of stepped up the whole western expansion. coming to you. yes, sir? >> brief questions -- i wondered to what extent the congress and the meshes thought that britain was preoccupied when napoleon was a factor in declaring war. an the other question i wonder if you found teddy roosevelt's history of the naval war a helpful reference. >> the question of great britain being preoccupied, many in congress including president james madson who thought, you know, if we just declare war and kind of pull the tail of

the british lion a bit, maybe some of these things like these issues will go away. in fact, another example of the slowness of the communication, the british parliament had repealed the orders in council that was sort of the reason that british ships were stopping american ships from seizing them. and i think that madson and many in congress -- because it's such a long reluctant flow, really thought, oh, gosh, if we just do this, nothing is going to come of it. a couple in the high seas and that will be it. no one thought james madson and the capital would complain. that's certainly part of that. the question about theodore roosevelt -- we think of him as a president and a rough rider and everything, but at harvard and in the 1880's, his dissertation was on the naval war of 1812. and it's still remains today a really great source. and he's the one who says in

that, never mind oliver has sert perry on lake erie, the greatest american naval hero and the greatest american battles in this war is the victory on lake champlain. there aren't many people if you start asking about the war of 1812 who would know about lake champlain. roosevelt said it. if you're interested in tonnage and armaments and the weight of a broadside and what that does on frig gots, read theodore roosevelt. he goes on in almost excruciating detail to talk about that. yes, sir? >> is it safe to assume that the united states decided to go war with britain rather than france because of territorial ambition -- you have mentioned that the french were also -- >> i -- i think that certainly in the part of henry playing and the wart hog, that's exactly true. their interest was in canada. i think on the other two issues

-- the french, of course, weren't impressing american seamen only great britain. that's left in the big three of the war. it's receiving trade traditions that france was really guilty of. people in congress debated declaring war or issued some letters of remarkable reprisal, in the end it was really henry clay and his wart hogs that beats the loudest in the declaration of war. that's why it involves that. questions? >> well, i think that's a good question. and shell bifoote at the end of

the ken burns speech talks about almost a benediction of the sieve war talks about this being a testing ground and after the american civil war, we're united to one nation. i don't disagree with that. let me give you some examples. before the war of 1812, the whole idea of suss session was really -- i don't want to use frivolous but far less serious than it came to be in the civil war. new england threatened in the 1990's over the alexander hamilton banking plan. people out west including henry clay who say to congress -- look f you don't ratify the treaty of the louisiana purchase, we're going succeed from the union, buy from france and set up our own country. in the war in 1814, the new england states get a little conference of hartford,

connecticut and flirt with the idea of suss session. so there's all of these forces going on. and i guess after jackson's victory, the glue that comes to hold the country together, i stouth you that without this war and without that glue, then the american union may not survive until the civil war and it may not have come back together as strongly after. other questions? >> you mentioned spain is an ally of britain. that was after they were flown in. there were standing ships involved in opposing -- >> >> yes, things change. and in 1813, duke of wellington engage in the forces on the aye beer i don't know peninsula

trying to push them back across the peer niece. and in fact robert frost who leads the invasion on washington and is kill in the invasion against baltimore leads british troops in the pierines prior to being dispatched to the united states. one more question over here? >> how serious was the impressment of sailors? can you talk in numbers? >> it was serious in terms of the thousands. what would happen is america had naturalization laws. but great britain held to a certain test -- once an englishman, always an englishman. it didn't matter what degree of blood or naturalization of the united states or whatever. so they were seizing sailors off of not only american ships but also they had the right to

impress sailors off of their own commercial merchant ships or the ships of any other neutral, again, who had the faintest degree of british flood. so it's in the thousands and thousands. in the book, i have the exact numbers in terms of the percentage that really were determined with some degree of reliability to not have had the ounce of british blood and to really have been american tracks or german or french or whatever thank you all very much. it's been a pleasure to b next

you are currently working on? >> well, my policy not to discuss the films that i'm making while i'm making them. for all the obvious reasons. >> are you currently working on one? >> maybe. i just don't talk about it. they just appear when they appear. it is not in the best interest of the film to give a heads up. you know? before i made "sicko" i made the mistake of saying i was making a film about the health care industry and the health care industry went on high alert and the pharmaceutical companies went on real high alert and even though the film wasn't going to be about them, it was about health insurance, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars

preparing for me and i would give all of these internal memos sent to me from people at work -- that work at different pharmaceutical companies, saying we had an inservice today and they hired a michael moore actor to come in and do role playing with us, if he shows up at the building, this is how you handle him and pfizer had a michael moore hotline and it says in the memo. and if i show up at a regional office around the country, call this number in new york and they went to... an executive at cigna health insurance company and he talked about hundreds -- millions of dollars they spent hoping to discredit me and attack me and if necessary figuratively, not literally, i hope, push me off a cliff. so i learned my lesson there. it is not a good idea to give them advanced notice what i'm

working on. >> and book tv interviewed wendell potter on his book, if you want to see that go to booktv.org and use the search function in the upper left-hand corner. this question: as an iran-american, i am worried about worries you may be planning a trip to iran and the press said you were invited to come to iran and you have accepted and they would consider that a coup if it happens. >> i have been in invited for many years and "bowling for columbine" won the top prize at a film festival in iran and the prize was a beautiful persian rug they sent me. no. i'm not going to iran to the film festival. i don't know if it is really... you know, the thing is, with iran, i have been active in the last year or two, they've had a

couple of filmmakers, essentially have been under house arrest, and i have been active with other filmmakers in the country to convince them iranian government to leave them alone and let them make their films and iranian filmmakers, they have the greatest filmmakers, if you have a chance to see an iranian film, they are really, really good and it is definitely a country that loves the movies and i think we saw through the green movement here a year or two ago, there are huge -- a huge sentiment in the country to be free of the dictates of those who would want to run the country. iran is a democracy on a certain level. they actually do have free elections, anyone can run, and there have been a couple

documentaries i've seen that are incredible things and they're not -- i try to avoid any sort of evil act, axis of evil discussion because i know that there are people in our government, now that we've had our way with iraq, want to move on to the next bogeyman and iran seems to be it. and there are certain forces that want us to now go to war or bomb iran, things like that. and i try to avoid any kind of -- i don't want to be associated with anything to do with my government attacking anybody else again on this planet. so i think we leave to it iranian people and i think they are going to stand up and get the country they want. and i'm hopeful for that. >> this is michael moore's most recent book, "here comes trouble." stories from my life. john in portland, oregon. you're on the air. >> caller: hey, michael. i've seen a few of your propaganda films over the years, and, i've noticed that you try to edit things so people think

something happened when it didn't. and i wanted to specifically ask about fahrenheit 911. you have a section where you are asking congressmen to send their kids to iraq and one congressman, republican congressman said he had two nephews in afghanistan and you edited it so it doesn't respond and looks like he has no response and walks off. and, that is not what happened and i want to know why you didn't include his actual response if you are supposed to be a documentarian. >> thank you for that question. first of all, in that particular scene i had him a specific question and, i asked it of every congressman i ran into, republican or democrat. would you send your son, your son or daughter, to iraq and he wouldn't answer the question and instead, he tried to -- and a number of others did, too, oh, i have a nephew, i have an uncle

or a cousin or... i have somebody down the block, that is in iraq right now. and no, i don't think you understand my question. would you send your son or your daughter, not your sister's son or daughter, your son or your daughter, and he wouldn't answer the question. they don't want to answer that question, because at the time when i made the film, "fahrenheit 911" there was only one member of congress who actually had a son or daughter in iraq. and i just thought, wow that is interesting, there are 535 members of congress. majority of them voted for the war. but they don't seem to want to be willing to sacrifice someone from their own family. send kids from the other family, those who live on the other side of the tracks, let them go do it. that was the point of that and he was giving me a dodge answer,

and saying he had a relative over there and that wasn't my question. and i still think it is a relevant question. if you are going to vote for war, would you be willing to send your son and daughter and, i will tell you, i was over... i had not seen a world war ii memorial until yesterday and i went over there, and when you walk in, on the first stone as you walk into the memorial, it says, world war ii memorial, big letters and big letter under it it says, george bush and it shocked me for a second and i think, oh, because he was president when it opened but i'm thinking, i don't see that on the washington monument, who was president when that opened and a plaque on the jefferson memorial. you know, who was president when it opened. what is his name -- his name, specifically, doing on world war ii? here's the guy who supported the vietnam war, but wouldn't go.

i mean, at least with clinton, he dodged it, too but he was opposed to the war and that is a consistent position. he didn't like the war and didn't want to go. i get that. okay. but, bush, he was for the war back then, and thought other people should go, not him. so he gets -- strings are pulled and he's in the national guard and his name is on the very first stone as you enter the world war ii memorial? a war my uncle died in, 405,000 americans died in, and your name is on this? i'm like, you know, it took me back to the question about, you know, yes, they are really good at supporting war, getting us into wars, but if they had to die or their kid had to die, no, i don't know about that. but, somebody else's kid... just abhorrent to me. >> there's a story in "here

comes trouble" about your father and his world war ii experience and there's a story in there about you taking a trial run to canada. >> my dad was in the first marine division, world war ii. and he was in many of those island battles right on the beaches, horrific stuff and i tell one story about christmas day, 1943 where he was in a battle in new britain, part of new guinea, and it was an incident where -- a friendly fire incident and he and his unit had taken a hill and the american plane is coming in and -- american planes coming in thought they were japanese on the hill and strafed the hill and every guy in my dad's unit was shot, one was killed and 13 were wounded and everyone was shot but my dad, only one who wasn't shot by the low-flying american planes coming in thinking they were japanese. and he told me, you know,

growing up, every christmas day, he remembers, he's grateful, was grateful for being alive, somehow he survived that incident. and i until the longer story in the book. my incident with -- of course i was opposed to the vietnam war as i said earlier and as i became near draft age i think what will i do? i'm not going to kill vietnamese and i and buddies decided, we were like i don't know 16, 17 years old, we weren't going to go to jail. we weren't going to go do service in some other service, you could do that for the government. we decided we were going to move to canada if we had to and so we knew nothing about canada and one day took a car and boat over to port huron, michigan to do a dry run and see how we'd escape

to canada and we got over there and forgot the motor to the boat. so we couldn't take it and wee we decided to try and cake the car acro -- take the car across the bridge and, the other guys were smoking a joints so they could relax and i didn't do drugs and i was the designated driver and tell the story about getting across the blue water bridge and into canada and our great escape and of course the next year there was a draft lottery and i number came up like 273 and i wasn't drafted. >> richard, richmond, virginia. thanks for holding, our on with author michael moore. >> caller: mr. moore, an absolute pleasure to speak with you today. how are you doing, sir. >> thank you, sir. i'm doing well. >> caller: i have a question to ask. i contacted my local american cancer society concerning an event they'll be holding and i

suffer from a brain injury and other illness and i'm -- your piece on "sicko" was absolutely beautiful. i loved it. beautiful. my question, sir, is how do i approach or how would i go about approaching the american cancer society concerning a study they did in 1974 with thc shrinking tumors in mice and them not wanting to go that direction? >> i do have memory of something about that. i can't speak to it. i will say this. thc which is an active ingredient in marijuana, you

know, our drug laws in this country, i mean, this is another whole show. are just out of whack and things like that, where medical marijuana and things -- people have been trying to use to help people and years from now, historians will look back at this era and wonder why we did so many of the things that we do. i would say, for you and i get questions like this all the time actually from people, you know, have seen my movie and need help. because of the medical problem. or their hmo will not pay for them to see a specialist and remember, these insurance companies want to provide as little care as possible because that is how they make a profit. and so i would say to you, sir, definitely, get behind -- there's organis ..trying to free up the studie

use these drugs, there are people who have been fighting, the fda for a long time because they take so long when treatments that are being used in europe and other places are not being used here. but, remember, the fda, of course is controlled by the lobbyists of the pharmaceutical companies and others who have a vested interest in making a profit and in "sicko" i told the story of jonas salk and, i told the story in my last film, "capitalism, a love story" and he invented the polio vaccine and people were shocked that he didn't want to trademark it or copyright it. that he decided to just give it away for free to the american people, to the world and he said he thought it would be immoral if he were to own that or make a profit off it.

he said, you know what? i'm a doctor, i'm a researcher, i get a great salary, i live in a big house. what more do i need? i did this for the people. where is that? where is that sense of -- talk about patriotism, right? not just for america but for the world. we don't have >> here's a short author interviewer from c-span's campaign 2012 bus as it travels the country. >> mr. guldbrandsen coming about two different communities to talk to people about democracy. tell us how you decided to do your research on why. >> we were trying to understand the relationship between globalization and the period at the end of the 20th century in

the united states is a period of really dramatic change, dramatically to call, economic, social and environmental changes i really change people's life in a lot of ways. so what we wanted to understand was what does that mean for local democracy? what does that mean for everyday capacity to make a difference in their communities, to participate in governance at their computer needs to make better? and so, the seven of us chose five different communities in north carolina that have experienced globalization differently. there were two communities that we chose that are what talk a county and durham county, north carolina to be characterized as landscapes of consumption. those are the kinds of communities that the economy is dominated by the consumption of something, whether it's medical services or educational services for the environment itself to my work tourism economy is vital. it can also be communities that

are dominated by fire. there's an acronym, fire, which refers to finance insurance and real estate. those are a landscapes of consumption. we also chose to communities that were characterized as landscapes of production and those are economies that are dominated by manufacturing, agriculture, resource-based economy and north carolina and chatham county, north carolina. and the third economic landscape that we lucked out with a landscapes of the state. and these are communities that may be state capitals or maybe communities that host a military base. and the fortunes of those communities are determined by a much broader economic -- broader political decisions made in the state capital or in washington the air something that that.

so by looking at these five different communities with these three very different kinds of economic basis, we get to see how people's lives are impacted differently by the broad, global economic changes in the century. >> see top people about political participation and a lot of people sometimes think of that just as voting. what is democratic political participation think of? >> ray. so we are anthropologists can assist you cultural anthropologist and we are interested in talking to people about what they do. rather than giving it too much emphasis on some in my coding and saying well, voting participation in putting this up or down. rather than thinking about what people are or are not doing as many other pundits and scholars have time, we've been out to talk with people cometh in their

living rooms and participate in civic organizations to follow along with nonprofit organizations or community groups and neighborhood watch groups. we sat in all these different environments for denise heyburn following people around trying to figure out what are people doing if they are not participating in the olympics anymore, what are they showing? if they're not putting so much newmar, either their creative ways they're working to make communities better? indeed, we found in spite of some pretty, pretty germanic obstacles, obstacles of social inequality, obstacles of intense burdens on time that families are working more and more. many families have multiple jobs that are struggling with things like child care and a political system is becoming more and more confusing to navigate. in spite of in spite of all of that, we found an enormous creativity and people doing

really interesting things. >> how did you conduct your research? did you spend a significant amount of time there? how did you figure out what you are going to do? >> we had any sugar or our five communities we had they are full time for more than 12 months and with pre-research prior to develop research and spending six months we followed up over the years denson. but the primary research. was an intense 12 months, working more than 40 hour work weeks. whenever public meetings are taking place come whenever a particular controversy have been, we interview people in-depth interviews. i remember there're numerous times when a lot of the people you want to have you are busy, so you follow along and say okay to me on a time for an interview, but do you mind if i take this road trip with you? and they are driving from place

to place any sort of talk to them along the way to understand their lives and their work and things important to them. they meticulously documented public meetings and follow public debates about different things. so we got a really sort of omicron like at the ways that people participate in local governance. >> what did you learn about the ways media facts of people think about democracy. you wrote about how they became robust into categories how people are apathetic, angry. did not have an effect on people's participation. >> it does. it does have an effect on people's participation. i think when we interview people about their number of lifetime participation in global politics interviews and we found searching things that people feel guilty about not participating more than they do. they are sometimes afraid of participating. and that adds to the additional

feeling that their obstacles and participation. more importantly we fundamentally -- we've taken our eye off the ball and we are striking out at night comes to understanding american politics and where key decisions are made, how they are made in how people are participating. by focusing on a many -- as many pundits do our many scholars do in the media in general, i think that we just -- the whole conversation is just off here at it just doesn't match up with people's lives that we are -- perhaps we are using outdated terms. perhaps we are reflecting on, you know, perhaps for missing because society has changed my way of understanding hasn't kept pace. i think what our book is done has allowed us to see new forms.

that nonprofit organizations have become increasingly important to governance of the local and regional and federal level in people's participation in nonprofit organizations needs to be understood as part of american democracy. we need to look at ways people are carving out new spaces for themselves. rather than looking back to a people dead in local politics 50 years ago and say, you know, this is something participation in this old form is increasing or decreasing. we need to ask the question, what are people doing today and how does that matter and what are the opportunities and obstacles that exist that people are finding in the works are actually doing? >> have you seen that? do you think since you've done your research in your book has come out that we are in the past to getting people learn meaningfully involved in political participation?

>> yes, but it is mixed. it is mixed because many new opportunities have developed for direct civic engagement. and it's really oftentimes very meaningful. i'd like to think about, although we don't necessarily write about this in the book, i like to think about the way that so many other aspects of american democracy, voters are often -- citizens are often responding to the actions of others. so with fewer voting, you're responding to the candidates that you are presented. if you are writing a letter to a political leader, then you're responding to something they've done or something that happened. or if you take up a protest, you are responding to something that gets you excited. but when you form a nonprofit organization or community group, it is a uniquely proactive space where you have the capacity to create a mission statement and create a whole organization or

something that didn't exist before. that wasn't so relevant in the middle of the 20th century, but it is important now. the challenges that it's really complicated. now when you take an increasingly complicated political system that we have in the united states and you recognize that it takes enormous business political literacy, an enormous amount of time to be fully engaged in a, and it starts to raise red flags. consider also that many scholars, many people have reported that there is a growing divide between rich and poor in the united states. we have a shank in middle-class and this is fairly well documented in the american demographic environment. but what we have looked at is

the way that social and economic inequality exists in the united states impacts and sort of contributes to the political divide. and there's a parallel story to be told alongside the growing trans. we also have been a growing divide civic engagement and that is a real threat to democracy to pay attention to. >> in newark on a college campus. as a professor do see more involvement by students who are in college compared to people you are working with the north carolina or ziskin and get people involved? did they get involved earlier? >> what i see with the students that i see as they are finding new ways to get engaged and they are redefining what it means to be politically. social media is a part of that.

you know, they are sort of a tried and true kinds of forms of activism that would like to see students involved when, but there's others that are emerging, too. we are just starting to understand about that. i work off campus as well. i spent a large chunk of my time working off campus with people in regional community come economic development and environmental issues. i work with a lot of nonprofit organizations and community groups and government agencies and i see an enormous amount of creativity an enormous amount of change in the 10 years or so that since i did my primary research, i have seen some pretty big changes in terms of accountability, in terms of the relationships between the federal government, state government, nonprofit organizations.