madison and first lady dolly madison. the author examines president madison's decision to declare war, the first president to do so, and the succeeding battles on land and sea as america fought its second war for independence from britain. this is a little under an hour. >> hello, book friends. and welcome. thanks so much for coming to the brook loft on this fine berg shire evening. as many of you know in our nearly 40 years of business we bookees here at the book loft are very proud of our staff pick section. they represent books we've read and hope will gain a little more attention from our comments. ..

>> as an architectural historian, he wrote a series of articles for "the new york times" which became the basis for his first book, the preservationist progress. over the ensuing years he has written over a dozen books on american architecture, art and history. happily for us, they moved up to columbia county in 1981 or he crackled their efforts remodeled an old colonial in his terrific book, house dreams. since been among his other projects he is turned his eye to thomas jefferson and his role as an architect and as an

inspiration to other early american architects in his book "dr. kimball and mr. jefferson." in the "the painter's chair" hugh brought to life the founding fathers of american painting and the a list of george washington. more recently, along with his longtime collaborator, photographer roger straus, he wrote of the houses of the founding fathers in the book with the same name. he and roger are hard at it again in a sequel of sorts to be called houses of the presidents. iso in the hugh, his research trips, should ask him sometime about his visit to bill clinton's boyhood bedroom. hugh is turned his attention to the war of 1812 with his new book, "mr. and mrs. madison's war: america's first couple at the second war of independence." a history book club selection of the month. most of us i suspect have a sort of remembrance of the war of

1812. francis scott key, dolley saving george washington portrait, and that's about it. but, of course, there was a much more complicated affair fought on numerous fronts at a time of considerable political division. we yankees wanted nothing to do with that were. and what a fascinating and diverse cast of characters. chief among them was the diminutive and brilliant james madison him and his vivacious and cunning wife, dolley. arguably they were america's first power couple. no doubt the obama's could learn much from james and dolley, perhaps they already have. it was a pivotal moment in our nation's history as america ossetia on all sides sought to maintain its independence from forces seemingly too huge to repel. but repel them they did. it is a concept that we few in deep and bookstores left standing fully appreciate.

thanks to c-span book tv who are here this evening recording hugh's remarks. please be sure to check out the tv schedule, or find that when this event will be held. hugh will be offering some remarks, after which he will take some questions. and, of course, we will happily sign copies of his book. also copies of hugh's book will be available on our website, the bookloft.com. i assume all cell phones are off, and if and when you do have questions, please just remember to wait a moment because some will be bringing a microphone to you if you. the entire staff of the bookloft are very pleased to welcome our friend and neighbor and fellow bookie, hugh howard. hugh? [applause] >> thank you, sir. good evening. it's wonderful to be here, and i

think eric for those kind words, and mark and alec and all the other folks here at the bookloft. not least because independent stores are becoming more and more important i think in this world. and so those of us who enjoy the process across passionate browsing books as both reading and writing, bookstores, whatever merits of the web, are special places. so i thank them for being here, both to welcome us tonight but also to sell us their wares. to begin then, a question that comes to mind is why a book on the war of 1812. partly the answer is because i can read a calendar. this is 2012, and, therefore,

it's the bicentennial of the war of 1812. and and diverse i found have a kind of doppler effect. you don't really care that much and then they speak loud to the have been of thing happens and then they fade away. i was hoping that i could catch that moment, and to judge from the folks we have here i would say that maybe it's working. another reason for a book about the war of 1812 is my curiosity, and i think other people's. because as eric said, in the war that kind of tends to blur and i think if you ask any casual student of history about the revolution or the civil war or any other conflicts of the 20th century, you will probably get a pretty good answer. for example, ask about the revolution, them have the declaration of independence, the shot heard around the world come the battle of yorktown, george washington, valley forge, all kinds of great things, the

stories we all know. and they come pretty easily to mind. but with a were taking 12 it's rather a different matter. and i've asked this question repeatedly over the last few years, and though the war has some remarkable moments, great stories and great heroes, for the most part the war is kind of a no man's land when it comes to our memories, ideally. so i wanted to do something about that. a third reason for doing this book is that deciding what to write next to me is always the most obvious thing, and i come up with an idea sometimes and some of them pan out, some of them don't. but the pattern is basically the same. and that is, i did some homework. usually with original sources. i want to find something that hasn't been said by bunch of other people and want to find something that's based upon what the participants way back in time new and experienced. and when i have a little bit of him on something, i put a few

words on paper. after a while there's always a moment when i either drift off and move to another subject, or i know i want to write this book. i know it's right for me. and when "mr. and mrs. madison's war," that happen when this paragraph came to me more or less in a moment. i'm going to read it to you. it's from the author's notes. picture a president looking morosely at the ruin of to this nation's most iconic buildings. he mourns their loss, burned as they were an act of international terrorism. a war declaration is in the air, one based on false intelligence. there's the promise, as well, having easily accomplished victory. unfortunately, the conflict will turn into a long slog that divides the country, in peace its treasure, and leaves none of

the warring parties feeling triumphant. now, consider that the president was james madison, the buildings the capital and the presidents house, and the year 1814. aren't histories that goes interesting? sometimes the past can be oddly contemporary. but back to 1812, the more i learned, the more intriguing and confusing was the subject. for example, the name of the war, war of 1812, is something of a misnomer. indeed, it was declared in june of 1812, but it was fought to the balance of 1812, all of 1813, all of 1814. and in 1850. so it was a 32 month war. seems odd. for another example, the biggest single military victory was the battle of new orleans which was

fought after the war was over. after the treaty of peace was signed. of course, this was an era without cell phones and without instant e-mail headlines. so in order to get the news from belgium where the treaty was signed to the united states, a messenger had to climb on a boat, sailed to england, climb on another boat, sail to newer, climb in a carriage, take that and another church and another carriage after that all the way to washington, d.c. that took approximately seven weeks, during which time the british attacked andrew jackson and his men at new orleans, and old hickory just plain demolished the british force that barge to new orleans, a couple thousand british soldiers were killed. so it's in some sense hardly a surprise when people don't passionate the sequence of events along with it is just too damn confusing.

by the way, the treaty that ended the war, it resolved nothing, essentially nothing because of stated reason of going to war were left entirely out of the treaty. we have andrew jackson in new orleans. the treaty again, that's john quincy adams by the way standing at center in the short jacket. the treaty can be summed up in the latin phrase that quincy adams used which is status quo. that is the way things were before war. no territory change, very little change in fact really. except that in some ways, psychologically, and publicly, the war was something of a watershed. and while this may not have proved a memorable war, i'd like to make the case that was nonetheless a very important work in shaping the american character. to put in more contemporary

terms, we were being bullied and we set up for ourselves. it was david and goliath i suppose, and although we didn't knock our opponent to the ground, the world's expectations and our own self-confidence as a nation were altered as a result of the war. i think it might be useful to explain this to mrs. madison the title. partly it's a function of chronology. madison was president when the war began and was his declaration that began it. so he got the blame, it eventually, whatever credit, the loss. in new england as there was no one really want to go to war, it would interfere with trade and the politicians in the east as the region was known were mostly merchants. and so a new england pamphleteer

quickly dubbed the conflict mr. madison's war. although no warrior, madison was small, sickly and intellectual by nature. his voice sounded fragile. he was always dressed in black. with the name of the war, his name, stuck to that were. the first american writer to make a living off of his books, washington irving, described madison as a we did a little apple john your country. but present medicine came to think that going to war was necessary. thomas jefferson, his friend, and by the time to work in a row, seemed a dozen years of outbreaks at the hands of the british. and that the risk of sounding like i am teaching to the test, is anybody ready to take their advanced placement in u.s.

history? madison had for more or less central reasons for going to war. first there was impressed but. maybe you remember that word from u.s. history. the british in the midst of a long war with the french had a nasty habit of helping themselves to sailors off the decks of american ships. some of them were indeed british who had gone awol but lots were americans. more than 5000 american soldiers were oppressed in this way in the years before the were. a second reason, the british hadn't limited themselves to sailors either but they had taken ships, more than 1000 nutritious, merchant ships, confiscating the cargo without compensating the american owners. the royal navy was the most powerful in the world. madison's third reason for war was evidenced that the british employed secret agents to spy on

us. we didn't like it then. we don't like it now. fourth, it was alleged that the british were stirring up the indians. they were of course called that name. and in his declaration of what madison referred to the warfare just renewed by the savages in the northwest territory. he blamed the english are causing trouble, and certainly to some degree it was true. dos with the support of new faction in congress, mostly westerners called warthogs, -- war hawks. it probably didn't hurt that the people around madison told him that taking canada would be an easy matter. his mentor, jefferson, predicted that the capture of canada would be a mere matter of marching, which makes good over the ration but, unfortunately, bad thing.

it didn't play out that way at all. next, i'm delighted to say i must talk about mrs. madison. i knew when i decide to write his book that i wanted to tell it from human perspective, and that would be mr. madison's, but also mrs. madison's. all of which meant i got to spend a couple years hanging out with dolley payne todd madison, and she was great. this is she, painted by gilbert stuart, in 1804. she still pretty young in this picture. i think 36. and if you'll excuse the anachronism, she was a bit of a babe, unafraid of displaying, but let's look at her. her gaze is a direct, so she. when she met james in 1794, she

had been recently widowed. he was 43, a world-renowned political philosopher and a principal author of the constitution. and he still lived with his parents. she was 17. she stood taller, handsome, black hair with striking good looks that quite literally turned heads on the streets. but as a team, you might say they were ready for prime time. in this picture perhaps you can sense her personality. and i think i can see why washington irving having dissed her husband as he would apple john found mrs. madison more to his taste. he never as lady president, as the term first came into use in 1848 when at mrs. madison's funeral she was referred to as first lady. so it was coined, characterized

at this moment. she made no attempt to be well away in the eyes of her admirers. as a irving said of her 11, mrs. madison is a fine, portly, buxom dame who has a smile and pleasant work for everybody. when james was secretary of state and his friend jeffersons administration, dolley was the president's hostess. jefferson he recalled is a widower. and she was on her way to becoming the central figure in washington society, a role she took on full-time when her husband took the oath of office on march 4, 1800 i'm. passionate 1809. fun evening of her husband swearing in, she looked a queen. she adopted the fashion of wrapping a strip of silk fabric, three of the in length about her

head. james who admitted to having slept poorly the night before looked pale and exhausted, but dolley, applicable to everyone, presided happily. she must have looked back at us. however, mrs. madison did more than look great. for 16 years she ruled inevitably over washington society welcoming politically friends and foe alike to were eating. so many came back to her so-called drawing rooms that during madison's presidency they were known as squeezes. she was well known and probably more widely loved and admired than her husband. in fact, the man james madison defeated in 1808 in the election of the president was heard to remark after the votes have been counted, i was beaten by mr. mrs. madison. i might have had a better chance if i face him alone. taken together then, i decided

james and dolley madison provide different but consummate perspectives, and to provide a uniquely and telling story. now, to tell the story of mark 1812 in detail would take hours rather than minutes we have here, but i would be remiss if i didn't tell a couple of war stories. it did produce some legends that are essential to the american mythology, if not every business is an associate stories with the were. for example, in the early weeks of the war, 18-pound british cannonball seemed to bounce off the whole of the uss constitution, the ship built right here in the bay state. a unique survivor of the u.s. navy's early days and i'm guessing more than a few people in this room have walked its index. while, on august 19, 1812, the

constitution won a decisive victory when the american ship reduce the hms -- hms guerriere, a perfect unmanageable wreck. the american frigate also want its name that day, old iron set dash of old ironsides. does a great day for u.s. navy history been going to read you another story of american sailors right from the pages of my book. the two great ships were well off from boston harbor under easy sail in the midday sun. on the tranquil sea, the hms shannon led the chesapeake but this was a pursuit in name only as the captains reached the understand that their ships would square off in a fair fight. at the stroke of 4:00, some

seven months separating the ships, the americans fired again. british captain ordered the top sales slowing the progress. by half past five, the chesapeake was closing fast on the shannon. oath ships steered into the wind moving very fast enough to maintain. he watched as his opponent came down on the shannon's starboard quarter sp of six or seven knots. the moment was a nervous when. it might have passed under the stern of the british frigate and opened fire. but the american captain chose not to attempt a routine maneuver. again, an unspoken gentleman's agreement honor. the two ships would fight on in equal terms. this was to be an artillery duel at close range with the ships sailing nearly side-by-side separated by a mere 50 yards.

there were 20 miles east of boston light when the chesapeake ranks up on the shannon at 10 minutes before 6:00. the american captain, james lawrence, berks buffer. even as she slowed, the ship and entered firing range. standing order worf for his crews to shoot when the guns bore on the second port of the chesapeake. den 14 was the first to fire and the second report was heard from the british frigate before the gunners on the chesapeake reply. thereafter the air thundered and then the next six minutes the ships exchanged three full broadsides. dimly heard above the deafening boom of the canon was it crackles and pops of small fire from muskets, rifles. the hellish cannon fire and low blasted into the decks and holes of both ships. don't try, fire into her quarters maintained and the main deck, quarterdeck and codec.

kill the men and the ship is yours. on both ships many men fail. a rifleman high in the rigging shot helmsmen of the chesapeake. the man who took his place soon met the same fate. a round shot beheaded a lieutenant in an explosion of bone and brains. two midshipmen were killed outright and another had his leg blown off. in the opening minutes of action, the crew of the chesapeake sustained at least 100 casualties, a third of them dead when they fell. aboard the shannon, more than 50 men were dead or wounded. clearly visible from the tops, captain lawrence in his uniform a pretty target, and a musket ball soon ripped into his lower leg. he could no longer stand with a bracing himself but he issued orders refusing to be carried below. as shots sprayed her deck, the chesapeake momentum carries her beyond where her guns would bear

off the shannon. her sales damage, they said the master bed and helms shattered by cannon shot, she fell off her course and into the path of the shannon as the british fuselage can do. captain lawrence, blood pouring from his leg wound, called for, but the british were quicker. as the ships collided the captain himself step from the ring of his ship onto the muzzle of the chesapeake that leapt onto the deck of the chesapeake. before captain lawrence could order a counterattacked another shot struck him, this one ripping into his growing. he staggered and fell calling to spend fire away, labs. several american sailors met in the british with force. the chaplain discharge his pistol but missed the british captain. he was struck in the face. he avoided the pike for the second-guessing but two other attackers drove onto deck, when clubbing him with the butt of a

musket, the other one lopping off a section of this school. a marine came to his aid in painted the the attackers. another british bound the captains had one with a handkerchief. he lost in and out of consciousness. another wave of british marines came aboard the american ship and drove the chesapeake's remaining crewman below deck and secured the hatches. captain lawrence had been carried a pashtun carried below. don't surrender the ship he ordered. when it ships surgeons and his mate came to him he sent them away to attend tend to the wounded men who would rise before them. i can wait my turn, insisted. but upon hearing the quiet of his own ships guns, he issued no orders were ordered them to fight faster and to fight the ship until she sinks. even when another wounded

officer was carried in his head bleeding profusely, the new c. brought didn't seem possible. they have carried her, but laurent remained insistent. don't give up the ship, he ordered again. don't give up the ship. is exultation fortunately. a british lieutenant, his countrymen in full control of the deck, that already all down the chesapeake scholars and hoisted the british flag in its place. captain james lawrence would live three days before he died of his wounds. a few doubts were expressed as to the wisdom of the fight at seeking out broke and fighting the shannon that day, but many much louder voices extolled his heroism. the most prophetic was spoken in

baltimore, made the inspiring words of the of lustrous bonds, don't give up the ship, be the eventual eternal model of america. in fact, lawrence's friend soon grace the pen on his just launched ship on the waters of lake there. the ship was the uss lawrence, named after the late captain lord. ironically, a horrific loss yet both in american history cairo and a rally cry for american forces. now, i don't have any video of course from the war of 1812. thomas edison couldn't had to do that for many decades to come, but in my minds eye i can envision a movie trailer, one of

those things that hollywood does to sell us an upcoming movie, and the highlight would have to include the battle of baltimore, a crucial conflict between the citizens of the city, both the land and sea force. them apart other wounded was observed by a maryland barrister and sometimes poet, who was held captive on the ship in harbor. he recorded what he saw in a poem titled in its first publication the defense of fort mchenry. but someone else soon put to music and renamed it the star-spangled banner. we would have to see oliver perry with the smoke from the battle of lake erie still in the air jotting a note to secretary of war in pencil on a used envelope that he pulls from his pocket. we have met the enemy he writes, and they are ours. memorable words.

most dramatic of all for my money would be dolley madison on the afternoon of august 24, 1814. we glimpse the battle of plates buried with the militia just a few miles from the capital. with rockets flying through the air, a spirit of british charged led by grenadier on horseback wielding his saber. then we had to jump cut to the president's house where dolley is awaiting chains return from the front. which is the own time in american history when the president has actually been in the front during a war. holding mr. madison did not return, instead retreating soldiers streamed through the town council is supposed will have a p.o.v. here of dolley looking down from a high window of the nation's largest house spyglass to were i. for days she has been attacking james' papers, along with her red curtains, waiting and wondering until a messenger

arrives with word from james the it's a free slave named james victor brings word that they must flee. but she can't. at least until she deals with george. because, you see, although she can hear the boom of cannon from the rooms in the presidents house, the white house, she refused to leave until she arranged the safe departure of the life-size portrait of george washington hanging in the dining room. ever politically savvy, dolley recognize it would be a surprise for the invaders but, in fact, she said later in the were to fall into the hands of the enemy, its capture would allow them to make the great finish. two servants aren't sent to the task of freeing the portrait. it's taller than any person. it was mrs. madison''s permissin they have to wait for decorative frame with a hatchet. once the frame is reduced to

little more than candling, the cans -- canvas is lower to the corporate only then can they carried have entrusted the painting to two friends who carded it to safety in a barn in rural maryland. make a great scene in a film. if i were playing a movie i suppose i want to convey a copy in 21st century terms, dolley was a little bit hot, but james was a little nerdy, vendor jackson became a rock star with his big win in new orleans. but more seriously, we must grapple with the substance of the war. as americans we put a premium on winning, which may help explain why the war of 1812 became the forgotten war. it's an unusual case from which no clear winner emerged. in fact, when i recently read

about lyndon baines johnson's talking to his ambassador to south vietnam come and sing i'm not going to go down in history as the first american president to lose a war, i mumbled under my breath, hold the phone, that ship sailed. because hadn't james madison already lost a war, at least sort of? which prompted me to think a little bit about winners and losers and ask the question, so who won the war of 1812? although it may seem one candidate is candid, let me explain. in a 10 handed mystery of what the neighbors were thinking, many americans, most before the war, talk about thinking that the canadians would welcome an invading american force with open arms. it wasn't only gives jefferson. warthog house speaker clay

ushered madison that the militia of kentucky, our lone candidate to place canada at your feet. quite incorrect as it happened. when it came to the american invasion, the canadians did not welcome us as liberators in a three prong invasion, it proved an adjective. in august 1812, a northwestern army of the united states surrender to a much smaller force at detroit. it was a debacle. in october, the senior, american forces in fact was captured on canadians who. in november this sol on montréal ended in a retreat in a terrifying exchange of friendly fire between american forces. in short, the british forces more than held their own throughout the work, so perhaps it can be said that in a supporting role the canadians were indeed victorious. a group who certainly didn't win

with the american indians. with settlers of encroaching upon their list of many indigenous tribes sided with the british before the war between. then senator andrew jackson on with many others in washington city believed america had been excited to work. with the ongoing fear among westerners of what lexington, kentucky, reporter called a scalping knife in the tomahawk of the british savages, the indians found themselves doing battle with the likes of william henry harrison, northwest territory, and later brigadier general andrew jackson after he took charge of u.s. forces in the south. the charismatic tecumseh, the wellington of the indian as he was called by one british officer, felt out about. after a massacre of inhabitants at fort bend come much later would become alabama, by a land

band of red crease, a jackson led campaign against the indians culminate in march 1840 of the battle of horseshoe bend. when we sold a jackson retreat was the greeks were full of some 29 acres from white settlement. the american indian was the biggest loser in short i a country mile. native american setbacks during the war proved to be for many others in the decades to come. another loser was the federalist party. to president madison, the federalist party, the late alexander hamilton, george washington with the disloyal opposition to first, it lost 39 to nothing in june 1812. does that sound familiar by the way? i thin think the republicans inr own congress employ strategy of unanimous opposition rather

often get into the mitch mcconnell had nothing on quincy however in 1812. anyway, the federalist later of postwar funding in congress in their own region, the opposition to war extend to such gestures ask continued to trade with the enemy. and the refusal by the governor of massachusetts to commit his militiamen to the work outside the boundaries of massachusetts. as madison's confidant, treasure, told richard russia observed, massachusetts i fear is rotted. and any file and ultimately suicidal act, the new england federalists assembled behind closed doors in what came to be called the hartford convention. it's stated purpose was to move toward a radical reform of the national compact, but, in fact, he as an open secret that they were advocating withdrawal from the union. or even an alliance with britain. the convention didn't succeed,

agree to any kind of radical action, but the revolution did have politics. however, it would poison their party. and by the. and by the time the next presidential election in 1860 the federalist party had ceased to any political party in washington. the electoral count was 183 for james monroe and 34 for federalist rufus king. for a generation, the nation woulwould, in fact, have but one party in the wake of this, the democratic republicans but said the federalist party died in the war of 1812 a self-inflicted wound. now, how about his botanical majesty and mr. madison? might either of their countries have been called victoria's? well, the royal navy was shown to be vulnerable. in the ship-to-ship confrontation that began the war, the timing american navy

15. both because of the prowess of the american sailor. on the other hand we didn't make very good job of protecting our capital. witnessed the burning of the nation's public buildings by a british force of a few hundred men. which in short form is to say that some wars are won, others lost, but still others like the worth 1812 nearly in when the combatants, both bloody and bowed, pack up and go home. that's kind of what happened at the end of the war of 1812. yet given how the goals of our most recent wars have been lost, the focus has become less on winning and more on going home it seems. maybe we should make a particular attempt to look again at the war of 1812 and the forgetfulness seems to have

gendered. as an aside, it's not quantity of a dedicated this book to presidents then and now. all that said there were outcomes, one might say gains, that serve american interests. with the return of peace in europe, with the signing of the treaty of ghent, trade was restored. ships departed daily for ports are run or. a westward the homeless and underway in the united states with soaring land values, population growth and substantial new towns. there was a new unity symbolized by james and dolley madison. there's james himself. they left washington riding a rise of popular.

the fighting had been launched out of the reception as henry clay expressed, that war was is necessary to america as a tool is a young officer to prevent his being bullied and elbowed in society. and while the american belligerence had clearly not vanquished pepfar, the war of 1812 did bullet the nation's confidence. according to one observer, french ambassador, the war has given the americans what they so essentially locked, a national character founded on the glory common to all. in the ensuing decades with policies such as the monroe doctrine, the united states would begin to demonstrate its newfound confidence in a belief that the united states had an essential role to play in the larger world. that i think is the most

significant legacy of "mr. and mrs. madison's war." thank you for listing. [applause] >> if we have any questions, and we have a microphone, and i think needs to be delivered to the questioner. and it's on its way. bear with us just a second. >> very interesting. you called this "mr. and mrs. madison's war." to what extent do you think it was madison's initiative to go to work with there's a premise to my question. that war was fought 25 years after the constitution, the last big event done by the constitution federation before -- it was the first and last time congress actually followed the rules and congress debated and declared war before we got started fighting.

but you say come you think it was nonetheless madisons initiative? >> well, i think that he certainly rode a wave of fairly widespread public opinion. that is to say, if you got out of the north, out of the east, you've certainly found lots and lots and lots of folks who thought that it was necessary to go to war to save face. and there was support in congress. there was a great shift the election in 1810 where many war hawks came to power. i think that was certainly part of it. in no sense was it his idea, the notion of going to war had come up before in 1807, same ship, chesapeake was attacked quite unexpectedly by a british. and at that time there were many

calls for going to work, so the idea was in the air and there was a seemingly easy solution to the british didn't seem to be very interested negotiating terms. so it wasn't clear his idea but it was, he was the one who finally decided that it was a necessity. he was the one who dictated the documents that was delivered to congress, and subsequently was turned into, was ratified as a declaration of war. is that an answer to your question? any more questions? >> to what extent do you think america locked out by having napoleon rampaging in europe at the same time with the war of 1812 going on? >> interesting question. i think that that certainly was, at the beginning of the war, i think that was a major issue.

however, napoleon abdicated april of 1814, and all the unpleasantness, that were the unpleasantness, the landlord and america came thereafter because so many troops arrived here, march on washington and did the damage that they did. and, of course, was suddenly turned back at baltimore. but i think that it's pretty hard to separate both causes of the war and even so war from what was happening in europe. because one of the principal reasons that the president is taking place, the british were out of sense of their own so they need more men so they had to get them where they could because they been at war for almost 20 years at this point with a french. so i think that the simple answer is that it's impossible to separate the french wars from this war, and that it's

integrated in a very complicated way. i'm not sure that's a good answer, but there it is. question? >> for people who are interested mostly in the naval aspect of it, the fact that adams had started building a navy, which jefferson did not particularly support, but during the war he did write to adams, how proud he was of their navy. there is a thesis that the six frigates were built which the british could not defeat repeat on lake erie convince wellington they could never really win. and that led to them be willing to make peace. would you have a comment on that thesis of? >> i don't think there's much of the question. well, i know there's a letter

that wellington road, and i think he was, after wellington forces prevailed, and napoleon was beaten, wellington was minister to france, and i know there's a letter he wrote back to london when his advice was solicited as to what should be done in america. and he said, i'm paraphrasing here, but more or less, it would be silly to pursue this war because you're not going to win. this also came in the wake of the battle of plattsburgh. this came in the wake of the battle of baltimore, both of which were significant american victories. so i think those are more likely to be, to have impacted his decision that led to his recommendation to prosecute the war further. than the battles on the lakes. i think there's no question that wellington's opinion carried a lot of weight, and the

negotiation in ghent, the character of that negotiation shifted at more or less the same time. so i don't think there's any question one can have an impact. >> i'm curious if you can tell us a little bit about the romantic myth that i've learned about it in school, about the alliance between andrew jackson and sean lafite and pirates in the battle of new orleans. what's true and -- >> i think it's a very interesting story, and i'm sure that there are those who know a lot more about than i do. but what i do know is that early in the jackson stunt in louisiana he wanted nothing whatsoever to do with violence.

he had some rather unpleasant terms that he used to describe them. however, jackson was nothing if not pragmatic. the pirates brought a number of different skills and also an intimate knowledge of a very complicated water returning. and i think that the reason the stretch, for reasons of personal, for the separation he wanted to prevail, he made a bargain with john lafitte and the pirates are contiguous ever happy about it. may be as happy after they -- i think andrew jackson did not hold him in high regard but found a pragmatic solution to a problem he had, not enough men, not enough intelligence, not enough skills, and then brought those things. i see a question here.

>> so, dolley madison. so the way you describe her she sounds as if she might have been the first of the modern first ladies, and i'm just curious what you would say about, you know, our potential first ladies right now, who do you think is the most like a dolly? >> interesting. spent or whatever it was you said. >> i don't think there's any question that she is the model for the activist, not a word she would've, but the participatory first lady as opposed to an example, in her time, when she was a young woman, and this is, abigail was a first lady and martha washington was firstly, she knew all of those people. annett davis come at the weekly event when a welcome the general public, they sat and people to come up every politely bow and

scrape effectively in order to get the attention of the first lady. when dolley set up or squeezes, she mixed, she would middle, she shook hands. i do know she kissed cheeks or not, but she was definitely a very accessible, friendly, warm person who, among other things, welcomed both sides of the pluto, all sides of the political spectrum. to her squeezes. which clearly was force for political good, and it would be a very nice thing able to do a little bit more of that today. i'm not placing any blame on michelle obama because with such a polarized situation in washington. now, who would be best -- i guess i don't know enough about the first ladies, although one has to admire a variety of things about any number of them.

i guess i don't know enough about contemporary first ladies to offer you a good answer. [inaudible] [laughter] >> another question in the back. >> i just wondered if you had a copy of the book to the president and mrs. obama yet? >> good idea. i don't think we have, but we should do that. >> we have one more. >> i have such a loud voice. were really have to use the microphone? >> it's for the benefit of the audience. >> you mention how you did some of your early research, but go back a step before that. how did you even pick the subject to do research on? >> well, it was partly the

consequence of looking at the calendar and saying, 2012, 1812, and there may be an opportunity of just the potential for the subject. and also my previous books, last book i wrote was about george washington, one prior to that was about thomas jefferson. so there's a kind of logic to writing about the federal america, so i was kind of in this general vicinity. and the chronology fit. and i did also know all of it about dolley madison which also attracted me to the subject because it makes all the more interesting. traditional history in the past has always been sort of great white guys doing all these things, now we can talk about spouses, talk about children, talk about art, talk about architecture. and i think that taking the sort of more broad-based approach i thought maybe could make the history a little more

interesting. so that is what i hope to bring to it. thank you. well, oh, another question. >> of all the public, the public buildings in washington were burned except for the old brick building which was inhabited by the u.s. marines. and the, that at the time, rumor has it that the royal spared it from burning out of respect for our marines but nobody knows the absolute truth. can you shed any light on that? >> you know, i'm wondering if we're talking about one building that was spared was the patent office, and the reason it was spared was the head of the patent office who was an architect, among other things, he ask you the first design of the capital heatedly went and stood in front of the building, he said you can't do this.

this would be worse than destroying the alexandria library. a lot of political play and not about politics. but i've never heard the story about the marine building. so i'm afraid i can't shed any light on that. well, thank you all for coming. i do appreciate your time and listening, and good evening to you. [applause] >> for more information visit the author's website, hughhoward.com. >> my connection to this foundation goes back quite some years. i have, with great honor and boasting use a lot of the work of robert rector in my own research and in writing. his work has been particularly

helpful for me in terms of my own attempts to think differently about both political and economic liberation for african-americans. the united states is an incredible place it stands out among other nations and in the world. and i recently had an opportunity to be reminded of how great this place is that my family reunion, in a scanty county alabama in the city of atmore alabama. it is the county that my family's plantation was. so i stand here before you as a descendent of slaves from the bradley plantation and the

county alabama. slavery reconstruction, jim crow, the civil rights movement, this is my family's story of a struggling and fighting for humanity and freedom in a context, in a culture that was saturated with injustice and dehumanization. now, what's so amazing about this narrative, this story is that not only does my family know where the plantation is, we now own it. and are members of my family currently living on it, as free people who have property rights to it, codified and protected by the rule of law. now, how many countries in the world isn't possible to have a

group of people who were once slaves on a piece of property, a few generations later actually own the property they were living on, they were being enslaved on? so this makes this place absolutely amazing. yes, of course we notice the progress in our country by having a black family in the oval office. that are not too many countries around the world where you would see sub dominant cultures rise to that level, that status in just a few generations after movements like the civil rights movement. it's amazing to me, and i personally am delighted to think about what is it about this country, what is it about our founding principles that allow

someone like myself to be a descendent of slaves, to be standing in front of a group of people having earned a ph.d, standing in front of this heritage foundation backdrop, speaking to you about my second book? to me, it's just an amazing narrative about the potential of freedom and liberty and economic empowerment that this country officers of the opportunity to take advantage of it. so i'm in my book "black and tired" on purpose. one, because i am black, if you can tell, and so i want to remain connected to the history of my own family, the story of rising to success in spite of incredibly dramatic and wounded and painful experiences in this country.