fur trade. you can have the entire west. >> there's some merit in that. >> they did have territorial. >> let's see if we have another question from someone else in the audience. >> thank you. >> yes, sir. >> you mentioned that it was the troubles that were happening at sea and rightly so, but and i realize that manifest destiny was still a ways off, but could you not say there was still not inklings of that given the statement some would say is conquering canada was just a matter of marching? >> yeah, i would not date manifest destiny from 1830. it probably dates from 1607, the founding of jamestown. the westward movement goes back to the cloolonial era. there were many who hoped if we

did conquer canada, we would keep it. among those was clay in 1813. even though he conceded at the same time that canada was a means rather than the end. sure. there were those who wanted to keep canada. and this really increased in 1813 after successful campaign in the old northwest. you have newspapers saying expended so much blood and treasure we can't give canada back once we conquer it. yes, sir. >> were there any myths about john paul jones and the battle of lake eerie? >> he was a revolutionary war figure. >> it was perry. any myths? >> those images that show perry standing in his boat as he's move frg one ship to another, probably not.

probably sitting. mostly though, i think the conventional account of perry's performance in the battle is pretty accurate. >> anything, you mentioned at the beginning about the mchenry flag at smithsonian institution. any myths surrounding that -- always been my understanding, that was the original flag made by mary pickers at the direction of general armstead. >> more of less, that's true. he ordered it. there's a famous painting that shows him and several other moves and shakers in a room with her while she's sewing it. that didn't happen. he signed the order. she made it. just gave her the dimensions and agreed upon a price. there are a lot of myths in connection with that flag and the defense of ft. mchenry.

there's one myth, you know rs it was in the armistad family until 1807. member of the family gave out sooef noouf nears. the myth is that it was given to abraham lincoln and we know that was not true. they wouldn't have given that star to abraham lincoln. we don't know who got it, but i'm sure it wasn't abraham lincoln. >> thank you. >> there are some other myths in connection with the star spang led banner. keys poem that was turned into a song and became patriotic. big events always have a lot of mythology. for the war of 1812, probably the most surround the battle of

new orleans. i think you could do a whole program on the top ten myths and could spend 45 minutes or an hour on that. yes, sir. >> i'll try to make it short, but when i was in school locally, the only thing that i retained about the war of 1812 was the battle of lake eerie as though it had begun and ended right there. >> where did you go to school? >> highland park right here in this area. my canadian friends had a little different version of it though. the point is i did not realize until i read a book fairly cently that the battle was merely an exchange of gunfire and one side won and one lost. it was a determining factor that led to proctor moving back to niagra and leaving this area in

the hands of the americans because at that battle, it established control of shipping on the lakes and the british in this area were so dependent on shipments that had been cut off, it changed the outcome of detroit and the surrounding areas in canada. >> that is correct. who ever controlled the waterways controlled the surrounding land because the only way to move men efficiently in the wilderness is by water. now, interesting what you said about your education and high school. keep this in mind, there were seven or eight theatres of operation in this war. four on the canadian american frontier. the one along the detroit river that really embraced the whole northwest. a second on the niagra frontier. a third on the lake -- on the st. lawrence river and then a fourth on the river lake champlain corridor.

you got a fifth in the chesapeake. a sixth in the southwest where we fought the creek war. a seventh on the gulf coast. that was the gulf coast campaign. arguably, there's a separate and eighth one around st. louis and then you've got a ninth on the high seas, so eight or nine depending on whether you count st. louis as part of the one in the northwest and where these, the fighting that took place in each theatre, shape the way the war was remembered in those areas, so we have many different war of the 1812 in many different ways in which it is remembered. the way we remembered it is the war began and ended in 1812. >> yes. >> you mentioned duquesne.

>> the british occupied it. the americans booted them out and the british came out and retook it and held it at the end of the war. this is one of the more remote posts in the war that was contested by the british and the americans and this like the gulf coast campaign wasn't even on the british radar during the peace negotiations. at one point, the british offered to make peace on the basis of ooh ta, the latin phrase that means you keep what you have. they were thinking in terms of well, we hold the coast of maine or 100 miles of the coast. we've got mcgnaw island, ft. niagra. those were the only areas they were particularly interested in. this was too remote to be on the british radar or to play any role in the sort of peacemaking process. although the british did occupy it at the tail end of the war.

yes, sir. step out there, please. >> was weather a factor because i've heard stories of a tornado or hurricane or something? >> weather was not a particular factor. where it played a role was the british occupation of washington. they occupied it for about 24 hours, 25 hours. there were two nasty storms that hit. some contemporaries called them tornados. they were bad enough that one building collapsed? during british bombardment, it was a stormy night, but i don't think that had been an impact. >> can you tell us about the pirate?

>> jean lafitte is part of that mythology and played a crucial role in the american victories. he and his brother headed a band of pirates. they preyed on commerce in lake -- the mouth of the mississippi river. they had as many as 1,000 people in their band of pirates. they sold their merchandise in new orleans for good price. us navy destroyed their base. shortly therefore, the british approaches lafitte and offered him a deal if they would throw their lot in with them. they offered them a commission in i think it was the navy and

also a land after the british success at new orleans but said i need some time to think it over and instead negotiated with the americans basically in exchange for pardon for his past crimes. he was willing to side with the united states. now, the myth is that he played a significant role in the battle of new orleans. his men did help man some of the artillery batteries in jackson's line and the lafittes really knew the terrain around there, so they provided some sbil jensen to jackson. but they did not provide him with cannons or muskets. much of his role the myth is a as a result of the memoir he wrote and published in the 1950s and some very good historians

have used that because whoever fab fabricated it was smart enough to do it on paper from the early 19th century. it looks authentic, but it isn't. it is surely a fake. lafitte's contribution was fairly modest. he wasn't at the battle of new orleans on the day of the battle. he was probably running some message somewhere for jackson to someone else. his reputation somewhat inflated that of his brother, somewhat underrated. yes. >> i was wondering if you could comment on the book on 1812 being more like a civil war being that loyalists were from the states that largely in upper canada, yes, lower canada was a different story because of the french and others there longer, but it was more or less brother

against brother and sometimes literally, in particular, because people lived on both sides of the river and niagra peninsula. the other thing, just to extend the henry clayism a little bit and project it beyond the war of 1812, in 1867, canada became a country confederated. but during the civil war, a few years before that, the american ambassador to upper and lower canada threatened the first prime minister by saying which side are you on? meaning the north or the south. and he said we're neutral. he says well, then you're against us. and that was actually an urge to get the rail line across canada to confederate and you know and keep as a sovereign country.

>> a very fine scholar has wrote a book i think i was published last year, two years ago. it's a very fine study of what happened between detroit and montreal and particularly, on the niagra frontier. what taylor did was bring some of the new concerns historians have about how to write history. sort of approached his subject matter from this new perspective and i think it's a pretty good book. now, i will say this. taylor parachuted in. he's not someone who studied the year for 20, 30 and 40 years, so there are some mistakes in the book, but of all those scholars who have parachuted in and written a book on the war of 1812, his view is undoubtedly the best. now, my friends in canada are not that fond of it. they think i'm more critical of

it than i am. but it's a very fine book. if i had to name one of the best books published in the past 10 or 15 years on the war, i would include his as the best. worth reading. bruce. >> a comment on the hartford convention and threats of disillusion that came from inside the country. just part of the demonizing of the federalists after the war or was there a real risk that new england might disassociate and join the maritimes? >> during the war of 1812, there was talk of succession in new england, but no serious successionist movement. and those who were chosen to attend the hartford convention at the end of the war were virtually all moderates. they adopted a moderate report so in the end, what the federalists recommended was a series of amendments to protect new england in the future and a series of steps that would

enable them to better fooinance their local defense measures. now, they did call for the nullification of the laws. a conscription act that never became law and a minor enlistment pack which did become law and both massachusetts and connecticut nullified that law. but connecticut did it at the tail end of the war and massachusetts waited until after the war was over and had been suspended. in later years, many people chose to remember the hartford convention as part of a larger successionist plot or intrees, but i think that overstates the danger. there was a succession of sentiment and you can see it in the newspapers, but no serious successionist movement. yes, ma'am.

>> fascinating information, thank you. i told my friend who's an eight grade teacher, she needs to take the myths back and use it as a true-false quiz for her class. i'm pretty sure that we do not have in detroit and understandably so, anything commemorative or any statues for william hall, but could you speak for a minute about whether there are any myths about what he did or did not do when detroit was captured and just sort of his place in history? i'm interested in r more information about that. >> hall was not up to the job of managing that job. so he marched his army up to ft. detroit. actually invaded canada across the river. was unwilling to assault to try to storm ft. amherstberg without

carriages for his cannons and when he learned that mcgnaw had fallen, he feared he was going to have indians descending on him, so he withdrew and subsequently surrendered when brock played what i called the indian card. that was a message from brock that h thabs look, if we have to attack ft. detroit, we're not going to be able to control our indian allies. they're going to massacre everyone. even exclaimed to a fellow officer, my god, what am i going to do with these civilians. rather than risk their lives, he surrender surrendered. conventional wisdom was that hall was the goat. he was taken a -- quebec as a prisoner of war. kept bad mouthing the u.s. government and said this guy can

do us more good if we send him home. he was subsequently tried and convicted by a court marshall of cowardess and neglect of duty and recommended he be shot. and as a result, hall was around for another 15 to 20 years and he and his descendants tried without much success in my view, to defend what he had done. if you look at each of hall's decision, they don't look bad. each one is defensible. but the result of all the decisions together was a disaster and i cannot imagine andrew jackson, william henry harrison, winfield scott or jacob brown putting themselves in the position hall found himself in mid august of 1812 when he felt he had to

surrender. they would have made a different decision. taken a different path earlier. >> one other question. i read a book or part of a book, let's say, i think the author's name was walker. is that possible? it's about the war of 1812. it came out last year. his point largely in the book, it may be a rethetorical questi, but until 1812, there was question about whether or not what parts of canada may become part of the united states or vice versa and his argument was that the war of 1812 definitive di ended that discussion. >> not entirely. one of the arguments that alan taylor makes in his book and it's a good one, that there were these two conflicting visions about what was going to happen in north america. or was our republican experiment going to collapse and who knows

what would happen in its place. where i think taylor is wrong is he argues that a number of british and canadians actually believe the u.s. would collapse and they were eager to reestablish the british empire below the 49th parallel. british leaders or subjects that seriously envision that. the fact that the united states had failed in the revolution and the war of 1812, to conquer canada in no way diminished our interest in canada. even though looking from today's perspective, we see the westward movement as a westward movement. it was also, a move that looked north and south. and i would say that we really didn't give up our designs on canada until about the end of the century. as late as 1886, the detroit newspaper ran an editorial, and i can quote this directly, from the editorial, they were talking about a problem with great britain. and the editorial says when the

next war ends, there should be but one flag flying from the rio grande to the north pole. now it didn't matter that canada had been independent for 30 years. this editor still thought in terms of waging war against great britain by seizing canada. and i don't think until about 1900 americans finally realized that canada was here to stay as an independent nation. i tell my students if quebec ever pulls out of the canadian union, which i do not believe will happen, we may get canadian provinces, particularly from the west coast. i don't think any of that is going to happen. i think secession is sentiment. that movement in quebec really peaked in the 1990s. thank you. other questions?

>> this might be a bit outside your province. but i heard on canadian television, of which detroit is one of three u.s. cities that receive canadian television, by the way, that canada almost went to war with the united states in the 1840s. do you know anything about that? >> i think the better argument is the 1830s. there were a number of problems on the northern border. you had irish nationalists periodically agitating -- now that's really in the 1860s. and i don't know quite how it happened. but it sounds to me like you have a bunch of irishmen sitting around a tavern and after ten rounds they decide, let's conquer canada and we'll use it as ransom for the independence of ireland. that's not to be taken

seriously. but let me just say that there was periodic tension along the northern border. there was a problem in 1830s and then again in the 1860s. but i'm not aware of a problem in the 1840s. but there was persistent tension between the united states, a recurrent tension, and great britain, and persistent tension between the united states and canada. really a lot of these problems were resolved in the treaty of washington in 1871. and i think that's what really lowered more or less permanently the level of tension between the united states and great britain as well as canada. and resolved the remaining outstanding problems, most of them, between great britain and the united states and canada. >> professor, we have a couple of counties named after a person

named anthony wayne and alexander mccomb. could you comment on their roles, if any, in the war of 1812. >> well, anthony wayne was a revolutionary war hero who died in 1795 or '6 i believe. '6? i live in wayne county, nebraska. i teach at wayne state college in nebraska. we're one of a number of waynes named after the great man. mccomb county undoubtedly was named after the general at plantsburg, who held the position against the invading brit tish -- british force in 1814, although that campaign that turned out a successful naval battle, like the battle of lake erie. this is battle of lake champlain. you say mccomb county. >> named after alexander mccomb.

>> and he later -- he got quite a bet of credit. and remained a hero in the post-war era. i want to thank you all. you've been a great audience. great questions. [ applause ] >> i do need to tell you that we hope dr. hickey will be able to join us again on july 17th when on maci -- makinaw island, it is once again surrendered to the british. we were with bill porter this afternoon. the director of the state historic part. a re-enaction of the surrender to the british. when professor hickey and his wife connie are there they can drink coffee on the grand hotel porch with official michigan war of 1812 by centennial coffee

mugs. there's one for he and his wife. and in answer to a shameless plug. we have them available for purchase for only $7. and david hales and i will be at the table in the back. more importantly, please buy the forgotten conflict: the war of 1812. buy centennial edition. $20. wonderful book. also, i absolutely love don't give up the ship. it is just a fascinating read with more than he could tell us here this evening. >> on the myths. >> on the myths. >> i'll have four or five books for sale out there if you're interested. i'll be happy to sign and inscribe.

from the colonial era prohibition to today, drinking for better or worse has always been a part of the american landscape. tonight, live on american history tv, a history of alcohol in america. watch our simulcast of "back story" with ed ares, and brian gallow regale of tales of beer and spirits in america. tonight at 8:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on cspan 3. >> a generation before president john f. kennedy action on behalf of a grateful nation designated him an hon they'orary american citizen. winston churchill paid a tribute to transatlantic orgins. appearing before a joint session of congress, day after

christmas, 1941. today outside the british embassy on massachusetts avenue, churchill literally described two nations with one bronze foot planted on british soil and the other on american. this pleased the old man himself to no end. of the statue announced on his 89th birthday, the honorary american said "i feel it will rest happily and securely on both feet." controversy arose over the sculptor william mcveigh's description of the war time prime minister not because of his characteristically defiant stance with right hand raised and trademark v for victory salute. no another churchill icon, the cigar in his left hand that offended some members of the english speaking union. the organization responsible for

the sculpture. in the end, authenticity and the cigar won out. unveiled a year after churchill's death in 1965, the figure seems even larger than its nine-foot dimensions would indicate. almost half a century on, winston churchill still manages to dominate his surroundings. by wait i cannot help for reflection if my father had been american and my mother british instead of the other way around, i might have got here on my own. [ applause ] >> this week on the civil war, author and university of pennsylvania history professor, stephanie mccurry, speaks about her book "confederate reckoning:power and politics in the civil war south" she says the south