next year we are dreading in britain when we commemorate the battle of waterloo. june 1815. which hugely overshadows the war of 1812. the reason it was in britain, during the war of 1812, we were fighting napoleon. waterloo, the victory in june, 1815, sort of nine months from now as it were, was far more important to us. but we greatly dread the moment when the battle of waterloo is commemorated because the french are not likely to turn up and they're not likely to come along to the things like this and chat away and say, well, we did make a cock of this and the balls of that. there won't be much of that going on, i'm afraid. here we are discussing this extraordinary battle of

bladensburg. now i think one of the reasons you're so happy to discuss the battle of bladensburg is because you feel it sort of led on, sort of inexorablely to the triumph of baltimore. again, i won't stir you up. i don't think baltimore can be described as a victory. i think it is an outrageous thing to say. i'm sorry, but in factual terms, the lifting of the siege of baltimore are was a huge victory for the americans. it was certainly a rebuff, a failure, reverse for the british but i think to call it an american victory was nonsense. it was after all a british victory with all due respect, a couple of days before they pulled out of the whole baltimore operation, the americans were made to withdraw.

the general was in charge of the americans pushed them back. so that was a sort of british victory there. what happened after that the british decided it simply wasn't worth the candle. they were facing overwhelming odds and they said, guys, we're not going to go on. they failed to reduce ft. mckinley is in effect a great american sense but to call it a victory is an overstatement. back to bradensburg. i think there were three problems the brits had at bladensburg. they approached bladensburg in quite apprehensive way. they were worried. it was 50 miles from ships. it was battle of a very small force 50 miles from the ships approaching the capitol of america. he had to face three big problems. one was the heat. now you have no idea -- but you

have an idea because you live -- today's unbelievable. but the heat's there, like it was absolutely unbelievable. guys in their red woolen tunics were falling down and even some of them dying of heat, the british soldiers. secondly, the width of the bridge which they started by crossing -- didn't go to the fort immediately. >> my understanding is they went towards the bridge, then suddenly started getting used to the idea there was a fort. thanked them for using a fort. bridge that crossed the anacostia was narrow. the third problem of course was the problem of the guy on that monument, the undaunted joshua barley. one question, one cannot detract, whatever rude things one says about the battle of bladensburg, one cannot detract from the fact that joshua barney

and his flotilla men filled with 300 blokes, facing the entire british army which run right the way through the first two american lines face this quite small force who held them up and took severe british casualties. barney was a serious problem for the brits. and ross himself took his life in his hands. there we are, three huge problems in what was, i'm sorry to say, it was an american disaster. >> thank you. steve? maybe you can rebound the americans. >> i'll see what i can do. peter did make this claim about baltimore being a defeat last night and my response to him was fairly simple -- scoreboard. >> it's true. >> the important point is that the british did withdraw and the

attack was turned away. as for bladensburg, that cannot be described as an american victory by any means. but i will say, i'm very glad we're doing this today and that there's been a dedication of the monument this morning because i think we sometimes tend to make all these jokes about bladensburg. it's known as the bladensburg races. we laugh and joke about the soldiers who fought here, how fast they were and all that. i have to think, these were primarily citizen soldiers. these were militia. they were not particularly well trained. they were not well equipped and they certainly were not well led. yet they showed up. they were here. i sometimes wonder how many of us today would show up if an invading army was moving towards the capitol. i think we need to give them credit for that and honor their bravery. the other point i want to make

here at the start is that bladensburg is also a story of missed opportunities. because despite the fact that the americans were going against very veterans troops, well led by general ross with the able admiral coburn at his side, there were opportunities for the americans to turn this attack back. before bladensburg, we certainly missed opportunities where even a modest attack on the british advance could have turned the british back. ross was rightfully quite nervous of advancing with this pretty small british force with very little artillery away from his ships. he was under strict instructions from london not to do anything that would risk his force. certainly there was some risk involved in coming to washington. even as late as really the 24th when very belatedly the american commanders, including general wi winder, realized that the

british attack would be coming through bladensburg, even though as ralph mentioned, really ultimately it was pretty clear the british were going to have to come through bladensburg to get to washington because the more southern approaches, certainly they couldn't have been able to cross the river down there because the bridges had been blown, if, they wouldn't be able to get across the river. it is much wider here than at bladensburg. so if our forces had been placed a little bit earlier, a little bit more wisely and without so much chaos at the last minute, i think that british force could have been turned back. so i think when we think about bladensburg, we have to think about some of the missed opportunities but also honor the sacrifice that was made here. thank you. >> mr. george, welcome. we are starting off talking about why the battle of bladensburg. >> okay. well, one of the things that i would like to mention is that

one of the things that the americans had and the british didn't have was cavalry. to know what was happening up ahead. battle of bladensburg, even though it was a defeat for the americans, directly led to what happened at baltimore where general ross was mortally wounded, again because he didn't have cavalry to know what was happening a few miles up the road where general stricker had pushed down the peninsula. and it was because of key -- the word are "key" of course means something else. francis scott key. but because of key officers of the 85th regiment who had led the advance into bladensburg, namely major george brown who

was wounded with a musket ball through the pelvis. very painful. concerned thornton who led the 85th across the bridge. and also major wood. all these key officers were wounded here and left at bladensburg. and so they were not available to lead the advance of baltimore. so the disaster that happened to the british at baltimore was because of what happened here at bladensburg. so bladensburg and the burning of washington was definitely a disaster and something that should not have happened and i disagree with what is said that washington was burned because of the burning of york. we can talk about that a little bit more. that's always been said. that's been said for 200 years. but there's absolutely nothing in the british correspondence to

say we went to washington because we wanted revenge for the burning of york. in fact, the british admiral and chi chief, vices a mirl s svice adm mentioned a number of places where the americans had burned up in canada. including niagara on the lake. i know we have an official here from niagara on the lake, but he never mentions york. so that means that york was not the reason. they weren't thinking about york. general ross probably had not much knowledge of the fact that the government buildings of york were burned in april. of 1813. >> let me start off a question. actually, it is a very good question and maybe to start off

with the rest of the panel on why exactly did the british burn the capitol and if it was not in response to york, why did that happen? why don't i lead off with that question and we'll take questions from the audience. >> i don't mind starting off on that one. we hear over and over that the british wur isish burned washin. that's not really correct. if you read good scholarly books they will point out to you that the british burnt select public buildings. their attempt was not to come in and totally destroy the city of washington. they actually showed restraint. i think we as americans need to recognize that. every time we say that the british burnt washington, we're actually overstating the situation. which makes it even more interesting when you consider that before the british even got to the capitol, which was the first building that they burned -- when i say capitol, i mean that with an "o," not an

"a." the capitol building. before they got to the capitol building, the u.s. navy had already begun to burn the navy yard and the two other bridges that were south of bladensburg were also on fire. so around 8:20 on the evening of august 24th, first the bridges were burnt, and then the navy yard. so as the british are coming into washington, d.c., they're already seeing fire. it's not fire from them. it's fire from the united states military that is trying to keep potential military targets out of the hands of this invading army. so i would just urge everyone to please keep in mind that the british truly did not burn the city of washington. i did an analysis, and at best, it might be 4.8% of the city was burned by the british. >> well, for heaven's sake, i mean the massive headline in this story is that the british went into washington -- to hell

with the navyyard -- and they burnt the white house. they burnt the white house! and they burnt down congress! they burnt down the parliament, the shrine of democracy in the usa. now why did they do it. that was the key question you ask. straightforward and dead simple. the british army, british people were fighting a war of survival against napoleon and occupied the whole of europe except g÷ britain. they had to make sure this guy was defeated. wiped off the map. and the americans were trading with napoleon and the americans were getting in the way of our war with napoleon, the blockade of fronts. fronts for napoleon was a threat to the entire civilized world. you as well, if i may say so. beside you. but americans in the long run. although we sold you louisiana which wasn't quite useful,ñk i must admit. but britain had acted extremely

arrogantly and disgracefully. right? in impressing american sailors on american ships to right in the royal navy against france. that was outrageous! and understand, made american tempers rise. so america declared war on britain and invade canada, a they invaded -- >> you can watch the rest of this recorded program on our website, c-span.org. we're going to leave it now to continue our live coverage of a two-day forum with historians and authors marking the anniversary of the british burning of washington and the war of 1812. the next speaker is katherine algore, who's written a book about dolly madison called "a perfect union, dolly madison and the creation of the american nation." that should get under way in just a few moments live here on c-span3's american history tv.

welcome back, everybody. america under fire, mr. madison's war and the burning of washington city. for those of you who may be just joining us, if have you one of these little devices, make sure it is turned off or in the silent mode, that would be fantastic. so i have the pleasure now of introducing dr. katherine algore. she is going to tackle james madison's other half and some of us might say his better half, dolly madison. katherine has written several very important books on dolly, including a perfect union.