i think the problem here is that jeffersonian republicans did not fully understand that we were a second-rate power. and there's a great quote from a federalist, daniel sheffy, at the beginning of the war in which he talks about how we've considered ourselves of too great a weight in the scale of nations and assumed that we could control thing that is really were beyond our control. o that. okay? >> yesterday, david cameron announced a multi, multimillion pound contract for vehicles for the british army. the headline is 800 jobs. and whenever you see money being allocated to the military, discussing barack here, or moving a carrier from norfolk down to mayport, it's jobs that everyone's looking at. now, building a 44-gun sprigat, that takes employment and jobs.

and most of them i think were built around either boston or philadelphia. in supporting the war, and particularly the naval war, did jobs ever come into any of the equations in 1812, or looking longer through american history, when did jobs become an issue of national policy? >> all right. when did jobs start driving our defense policy? >> yes. >> not during this war. i don't see any evidence that federalists said, well, we've got to support expanding the navy because that's going to be jobs in our commercial ports where we're often in a majority. i've not seen that hint of that. and this is a rare war, in that the -- we really did bad economically during the war. sometimes we do very well during

a war, i think it's more typical that the massive spending in the ploumt, world war ii being the best case probably, generates economic activity. but not in this war. and that's largely as andrew lambert will be happy to remind us, because of the overwhelming power of the british navy. which established a blockade of the coast of the united states, and that had a devastating impact on the u.s. economy. not only virtually cut off all of our foreign trade, but even much of the coasting trade. and a lot of goods and commodities were moved up and down the coast. it was always easier to move things in those days by water. so it also had, by the way, an impact on american public finance. government didn't have enough money to finance this war. so what happened in november of 1814? the united states government for the only time in our history, since hamilton put our financial house in order, defaulted on the

national debt. it could not make the payment on the interest due in new england in cold and silver coins as was required by law. now, one of the ironies of this is our overseas bond holders got paid, because our international banker was the house of bearing in england. and even though it was a british banker, they front us the money to pay our bond holders in europe. a reflection in those days of the sort of -- the notion that the war was still to some extent considered the king's business. and not a concern of private citizens, or private companies. and the british government, as i understand it, understood bearing and brothers were doing that, and did not object. okay. what else? did you have a question or comment here?

all right, what else? >> you talked about madison's person amounts. >> some of the personalities. madison, the guy was a great statesman. but he was really more comfortable crafting legal treatises on international law, upholding our position on neutral rights. and you look at those documents he produced between 1801 and 1809 as jefferson's secretary of state. these are wonderful works of legal scholarship. but i don't think he was particularly well suited to be a commander in chief in time of war. he just -- and the republicans, you look at what they were saying, they're saying, oh, this guy, he's too nice of a guy. he's too mild-mannered. that was a fairly commonly said by republicans privately to one another. you can see it in their

correspondence. >> [ inaudible ], that they have a special place in their heart for james madison because he founded the united states marines. i hadn't heard that before. he said we've always been in charge of the ceremonies, and we always hope we will be. and he said he was our founder. >> that's news to me. we've got to have a marine here who knows who is responsible for the legislation in 1776. who's credited with that? who's credited in 1776 with founding the marine corps? >> continental congress. >> continental congress. who was the driving force in the continental congress? >> i guess -- >> it has to do with his

declaration against piracy? >> you got me. i don't see madison having a significant role there. now, interestingly enough, when the british burned washington, "time" magazine ran a piece that -- and it's online, a version of the magazine, on the anniversary, you know, about a week or so ago, and they had entitled it, why americans celebrate the burning of washington. and i wrote the piece for them. and i said, gosh, celebrate, what are you talking about? maybe commemorate or remember. anyway, when the british burned the public buildings of washington, they missed the marine corps barracks. and the myth grew up that, ah, that's because the british really respect u.s. marines. [ laughter ] nice try. they put up a fight at

bladensburg. they were part of a -- the only troops at bladensburg that put up a decent fight before the british ore ran them, and then occupied the city. but the british, i think, did not know this was a marine corps barracks. they didn't realize it. pardon me? who is edmond pendleton? i don't know what he was doing during the war of 1812. can you tell me? >> do you know what he did? >> in the back they said he was dead. okay. what else? yes, sir? >> we've been learning much more these last few weeks as the war of 1812 is in the national public eye. and we talk about how the navy, the u.s. navy came out of the war of 1812, with a much clearer picture of what they needed to have for national defense. and also the need for the united states to have a standing army.

not to rely solely on a militia called up in time of need. so if the war of 1812 had never happened, can you give us kind of a picture of our own self as we approach the time period when we went to our own civil war, if we had not had these national are defense teams in place, maybe how that might have -- >> well, i try to avoid questions that deal with what didn't happen, rather than what did. this is counterfactual history. it's great fun if you're at a war college or staff college. but i'm a historian and i prefer to deal with what did happen. and here's my take on this. we typically dismiss the war of 1812 as a small and inconclusive conflict. but my argument is that it had a profound and lasting legacy.

and, therefore, deserves a higher profile in our public memory. and part of that legacy was that it gave -- it stimulated defense spending. enough republicans embraced the notion that we needed a defense establishment in time of peace, that after the war was over, we committed to maintaining a small regular army, and somewhat larger navy. the navy really was the biggest winner there. and the irony of this is, we had had a number of successful naval engagements on the high seas, especially at the beginning of the war. but they had absolutely no impact on the course of the war. you know, the "uss constitution" won its nickname old ironsides, and probably to this day is the most famous ship in the u.s. navy. it has been a commissioned ship since around 1940. so we did commit to maintaining

a small army, and a medium sized navy. that was one of the by-products of the war of 1812. and the other sort of military legacy was, both services emerged from the war with a greater commitment to professionalism. now, i think the navy was already a fairly professional service, but it was even more so after the war was over. and congress created the board of naval commissioners at the tail end of the war to ensure that. the modern army was really born on the niagara frontier in 1814. and it became an ever-more professional service thereafter, because west point was feeding into the service these professionally trained officers. andrew jackson remained in the army as one of the two leading commanders until 1821. and he was undoubtedly the outstanding military commander in the war of 1812. no question about that. but he represented the past, not the future. the amateur, the part-time

soldier, the guy who liked to lecture his superiors, ignore their orders when he didn't approve of them, that whole outlook was fading. our army was being -- was becoming a professional corps that recognized and didn't question civilian leadership in the way jackson did. that was the wave of the future. that was part of the legacy of 1812. okay? yes, ma'am? remember your question? okay. >> nobody has spoken about the economy within the united states once the blockade became effective. >> i made the point, how did the british blockade affect the u.s. economy? it had a devastating impact on the u.s. economy. >> how did they survive? >> how did people survive in hard times? well, there was a lot of trade with the enemy, along the coast,

and along the canadian frontier. and the -- a lot of historians following contemporary republicans wanted to blame that enemy trade on the federalists. but it was a bipartisan activity. i actually think more republicans traded with the british across the canadian frontier simply because there were more republicans living in those remote areas. but people traded with the enemy. and they did what they had to do to sort of survive the hard times of the war. what people always do during hard times. okay? is that it? we're done? okay. thank you very much. [ applause ] here is highlights of the coming weekend.

friday, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, the nebraska supreme court will hear oral arguments on the keystone xl pipeline. saturday at 6:30 p.m. on the communicators, former fcc commissioners robert cox and michael mcdowell. watch the latest debates on c-span. sunday at noon, debates between incumbent democratic senator kay hagan and her republican opponent. and from a california governor's race, democratic incumbent jerry brown and republican nominee neil koshcari. author john yoo talks about the law on powerful nations. saturday on book tv tv's afterwards. how republicans can make gains for the spanish vote. sunday at noon on in-depth, the three-hour conversation and your phone calls with the former chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights, mary francis barry, on "american history tv," on c-span3, authors and

historians talk about the burning of washington of the war of 1812. saturday on real america, the building of the hoover dam. and sunday night at 8:00, the anniversary of president gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. follow us on facebook and follow us on twitter. more from day two on the symposium of the british burning of washington, d.c., of the war of 1812. hosted by the white house historical society, the u.s. capitol historical society, and james madison's mount pelier. steve vogel, author of through the perilous fight, six weeks that saved the nation. this is about 55 minutes.

>> our next speaker will be speaking about -- mr. madison will have to put on his armor, in the capture of washington. steve vogel is the author of "through the perilous fight." he's a veteran journalist who wrote for the "washington post" until 2014. most recently covering2014. most recently covering the treatment of veterans from the wars in afghanistan and iraq. vogel covered the september 11th, 2001 terrorist attack on the pentagon, and the building's subsequent reconstruction, he also covered the fall of berlin -- of the berlin wall.

he's working on a project, the history of berlin during the cold war, maybe he has gone back in his mind at least to the fall of berlin. and he also covered the class of the war -- he received a master's degree in international public policy from john's hopkins university school of advanced international studies. it's our pleasure to welcome steve vogel to the podium. >> thank you very much. a great honor to be here, and thank you to the u.s. capitol historical society and the white house historical association. and james madison's montpelier for including me in this great

hon honor. i thought i would take on the myth that the british marched to washington to avenge the burning of york or what is today toronto in canada. as i was starting to think about this paperback in april. what do i really need to make this argument, do people still really think that. now that we're well into the buy centennial, i can tell you that yes people still really think th this. in fact i'm biassed, because i think the washington post is our nation's finest news paper. they have this terrific section called kids post, which brings current events and history to children. this was the headline a couple

weeks ago, revenge hungry british set d.c. afire. and the story tells us that after americans set fire to york, now toronto, in canada, the british decided to do the same thing to washington. and i know from experience that if you don't make that claim in your stories or book or whatever, you'll hear from a lot of readers or viewers who think otherwise, and in fact there was something on cbs sunday morning the other day about the burning of washington, or at least the burning of the white house, and the capital, and there was a viewer who commented, why not disclose the reason the british burned the white house to your viewers? i'm surprised that you fail to mention that york, known as present day toronto, was burned in 1812 and the burning of washington was retaliation for that act. perhaps then the american viewers could hear the whole story. i suspect this guy is canadian,

but -- and canadians have a right to be miffed about a lot of the ways that americans remember this war, including, perhaps who won the war. canadians likely have a better claim to that. and certainly many americans have forgotten that we actually invaded canadian territories as part of this war multiple times or much less that we failed in those invasions. so the canadians certainly have their grievances, but this idea of retaliation for york is really a myth and i'm going to try to talk about that today. retaliation did not bring the british to washington. this gentleman, admiral george co burning brought the british to washington. he was a really one of the most remarkable figures in all of the war of 1812.

as andrew lambert mentioned yesterday, he was a protoge of nelson. he got his start in 1793, just when revolutionary france declared war on great britain. and he would rise high during the two decades of war that followed. and early in his career he was assigned to a squadron where his -- he was commanded by young captain named horatio nelson who took a great liking to coburn. "zeal and courage" which are conspicuous. at age 24, coburn served as a senior captain in nelson's squadron and nelson actually trusts him with command in his absence telling him that, quote, we're so -- we think so exactly alike on points of service that if your mind tells you it is right, there can hardly be a

doubt, but i must approve. so in 1812, at the relatively young age of 40, coburn reaches flag rank. and the admiralty in london, looking for a new assignment for him with things calming down in the mediterranean, decides to send him across the ocean to north america. the first months of the war had not been stellar for the royal navy, as we heard from previous speakers, how significant those battles were is certainly in question, but in any event they were a bit of an embarrassment for the royal navy and the commander of the north american station sir admiral john warren was conducting a lackluster campaign. he needed the boost of a subordinate who could be a bit more aggressive.

there was some thought he needed the boost of a subordinate who could be a bit more aggressive. there was a british naval historian who was actually detained in philadelphia when war broke out. and he would later write, his name was william james, and he would later write, until co burn burn's arrival in chesapeake, people in this region would, quote, scarcely have known except by hear say that war existed. and that was about to change. coburn arrives in the spring of 1813 and finds the chesapeake just custom made for an expeditionary force such as he had, 200 mile length of the bay with all the rivers serving as tributaries, really provided access to what was then the real economic as well as political heartland of america.

and this chesapeake bay quickly turns into a lake. quite quickly in the spring of 1813, we start seeing attacks on the upper shores of the bay of many towns including havre de grace and towns along the eastern shore. and this happens almost exactly at the same time as on april 27th, 1813 where bringing brigadier general zebulon pike leads an american landing force on the shores of ontario near york. and they defeat the british and canadian defenders, but there is an explosion which kills pike and many other americans. and in the confusion that follows, it is apparently some american troops that set fire to the parliament building in new york. these soldiers were not operating with any instructions, but nonetheless are more than likely the ones responsible. so this was an act that wasn't sanctioned by american

commanders and it -- it doesn't spark much reaction at all from great britain. it is not reported in the dispatches sent back to london. it is seen as a relatively little consequence and the british were not terribly upset by it. in the meantime, coburn is doing a number of acts in the upper chesapeake that are really infuriating americans, including the burning of havre de grace in early may of 1813. and then similar acts along various towns and plantations, and then there's the attack on hampton, virginia several months later, and these were acts that truly terrified americans and

infuriated them. coburn at the time was probably not only the most hated man in america, but the most feared. and what coburn is doing really is to practice a form of total warfa warfare, 50 years before william ta couple is a sherman was doing in the south. cockburn wanted to inflict so much damage on this rich country around the capital that the government would find it impossible politically or militarily to continue the war, to continue its invasions in canada. so this british invasion of the chesapeake was really intended to divert troops from canada. but cockburn sees the possibility for more. he's so unimpressed with the quality of the defenses around -- in the region, that he

begins to think of -- that the capture of the capital would be certainly possible. and he sees this as a possibility to persuade americans of this high cost of this war and to so humiliate the government of james madison that they would be forced to make peace on british terms. in the summer of 1814, john stewart skinner, who was an american prisoner of war agent, who incidentally would later be francis scott key's companion watching the bombardment of ft. mchenry, skinner travels out, sales into the potomac to meet with cockburn to exchange some letters and gossip. and cockburn mentioned to skinner as they're walking along the deck of albeon, the flagship, that he doesn't see much way out for the president.

he says, quote, mr. madison will have to put on his armor and fight it out. i see nothing else left. there is nothing subtle about this, and cockburn was aware that this word would get back to washington and madison pretty quickly. but cockburn was so unimpressed with the american defenses that he didn't mind sending this word. he knew that there was nothing really the americans could do about it. in its third year, the war had taken a very ugly turn for the united states. driven primarily by events overseas, in particular in april 1814 prosecution the application of napoleon, which appears to have ended two decades of war in europe, and the british who had been able to really devote relatively scant resources to this annoying war on -- across the ocean were now in a position to put an end to this conflict. and relatively small number of troops, some of them from the

force that had just defeated napoleon, some of them who had been under the command of the duke of wellington are put on transports in france and sent across, including some 4,000 that are sent to the east coast. and the other thing that happens is the replacement of warren with admiral alexander cochrane as the new commander of the north american station. and cochrane was a real hater of americans, his brother had been killed at york town, beheaded by a cannonball and he was quite eager to give the americans a good drubbing. and upon his arrival in bermuda, in taking command in april of 1814, cochrane issued cockburn a cart blanche. quote, you are perfect liberty as soon as you can muster a sufficient force to act with utmost hostility against the

shores of the united states. their seaports laid in ashes and the country wasted will be some sort of retaliation for their savage conduct in canada. a couple of points here. cochrane was talking not about york, but newark, which was on the niagara frontier in which where american troops had truly done a heinous thing and burned homes and left civilians out in the dead of winter. there had been other actions along lake erie that had also caused quite a bit of concern. the other point, of course, is that cockburn had been laying seaports and ashes and wasting the country for quite some time now. for over a year. towns such as hampton in virginia had been burned. now he has sufficient sanction and the british would claim their actions in the chesapeake

were in retaliation for american actions in canada. now, with troops on the way to the chesapeake on july 17th of 1814, cockburn submits a secret plan to cochrane to capture the capitol. all he needed were the troops that he could bring up the patuxent river, one of the tributaries that would provide a back route to washington. and he says, within 48 hours after arrival in the patuxent, such a force, the city of washington might be possessed without difficulty or opposition of any kind. and cockburn spends the summer preparing for this, this invasion that he has in mind. he's got his base at tangier. and we heard from alan taylor about how the colonial marines were trained at this island. tangier was a perfect base for the british because it provides easy access to both potomac and the patuxent there in the middle

of the bay, deep water, except for mosquitos and the fact that a lot of the british came down with various illnesses, it was a well situated. and all this time, cockburn is doing sound, taking soundings along the potomac and patuxent, looking for the best route to washington. he's getting all kinds of intelligence from escaped slaves, from sympathizers and british in southern maryland and also from the newspapers, which are very hopefully printing all kinds of information about troop strengths and movements and all of which cockburn takes careful note of. there was really only one man offering any real opposition to cockburn at this point. and that's commodore joshua barney, who was a hero from the revolutionary war and had sprung to action when war was declared and commanded a privateer very successfully and then the -- as cockburn is going ravaging the chesapeake bay, he proposes the construction of a -- a more or

less a mosquito fleet of shallow draft barges that could attack the british in the chesapeake, which much of the waters in the chesapeake being quite shallow. he sails from baltimore in may of 1814 and pretty soon comes into contact with the british, who chases him into the patuxent river, and he's soon trapped in st. leonard creek. this is now june of 1814. now, barney manages to escape up the river, blasts his way out through a combination of incompetence by the british and barney's aggressive actions and he manages to continue up the patuxent. cockburn is not too happy about this at first. he quickly sees an opportunity here.

true, he would have to take care of barney and the flotilla before he can mount an attack on washington, but he sees the flotilla as an opportunity to disguise his designs on washington. he can use barney being in the patuxent as a reason for going up the river in force and to keep the americans confused, which turns out to be not very hard to do. in mid-august of 1814, the british reinforcement troops arrive under the command of major general robert ross, who was one of welling ton's very capable lieutenants in the peninsula war. ross was -- his instructions

were to create a diversion along the east coast, and he was very specifically told not to do anything with this force that would risk it. british have designs eventually on attacking new orleans. this is a pretty small force. 4,000 men compared to these armies that had been raging across europe, 100,000 and more. this is a small force and ross knows it. and he's finding -- he's a bit skeptical at cockburn's claims that they can capture washington with this force. but cockburn goes to work persuading them otherwise. he emphasizes that the weak american defenses and talks about how much he's been able to accomplish just with his royal marines. and he elaborates on this plan they have in mind, he would -- the main force would go up the

patuxent river, with the army landing here at benedict, which is how far up river they can sail with large ships. and then another force would go up the potomac river, which, of course, is the more obvious route to washington. but it is protected by the kettle bomb shoals and the expectation is that large ships carrying large guns are not going to be able to sail past the shoals. cockburn has done some scouting and he's found a route through the shoals. and some more ships would sail up the bay under captain peter parker to disrupt communications and further confuse the americans. and he's able -- he's able to persuade ross and admiral cochrane to go along with this. ross, he takes them ashore, in

st. mary's county and ross sees how poor the defenses are. and ross is, you know, an aggressive commander himself. he certainly has proven himself in the european wars, and he's eager to get home. he's got a wife who is not at all happy he's been sent across the ocean to fight in this new war. so what they agree to is they don't commit to an attack on washington, but they agree that they'll land the forces at benedict, and go try to trap barney and based on the resistance they meet, they can make a decision as to whether or not to continue on to washington. cockburn's plans are zealously endorsed by one of ross' officers. this is lieutenant george de lacy evans. this picture was taken much later, during the crimean war, where he commanded a division. i love this photo because it kind of shows you -- we don't see too many photos of

participants in this war. and this gives you an idea of what the american militia was up against, you know. a very serious, tough minded soldier was evans, and he is at ross' side and he's certainly encouraging the general to do this attack. quick aside, when i was doing research for this book, i flew to london, to look at the archives there, the day i arrived, i was staying at the flat of my former high school roommate and said, let's go look for cockburn's grave, it is in pencil green cemetery. we were wandering around in the cold and fog. and instead of finding cockburn's grave, we did find george de lacy evans and he's a stone's throw from cockburn. i just found this remarkable, that two of the figures most responsible for this attack on washington are within a stone's throw of each other. i was amazed. i don't know about my friend, but i couldn't get over it. he wanted to get back to watch some soccer. but so the landing takes place

on august 19th, and it works beautifully, just as cockburn has said it will. the americans are completely flumoxed. they can't figure out what's going on. they do trap the flotilla, august 22nd. barney blows it up rather than have the boats fall into british hands. he escapes with his flotilla men. but by this point there has been so little resistance offered ross that he is persuaded that it is worth continuing on to washington. and in washington there is some hope that, well, now the british are going to turn back. they have finished off barney's flotilla, they have done their business and they're going to go sail away. this is an example of wishful thinking we see in the defense of washington. there is several more brilliant

faints as they move to upper marlboro, and it becomes more apparent that washington is going to be a target. even then, general winder, the american commander who is getting no support from the secretary of war john armstrong is very confused as to where he should position his forces. in retrospect, it should have been quite obvious they were going to have to come through bladensburg to get to washington because in order to cross the eastern branch of the potomac, as it was then known, they were going to -- they would have to cross that river and it was going to be too difficult down here where the river is quite wide. and the river -- one can anticipate the bridges would be blown. but at bladensburg, the water was shallow enough that they could forge if the river there was blown. after a final faint, and very belated realization by the

americans that bladensburg was the site, on august 24th, there is a battle at bladensburg. speaking of marines, this shows some of the marines fighting at bladensburg. a couple of points, i don't want to talk too much, but we always talk about the bladensburg races and how the militia just scattered and the british cut through them. all that is true to a point. i think the first place we have to remember that the militia that shows up, these are civilians who have not been well trained. not well equipped, very poorly led by winder and very poorly supported by armstrong, the federal government. and yet they showed up. they -- these are citizen soldiers showing up to fight a very formidable force, maybe not in numbers, but certainly in terms of experience. and had they been better led or

had they been used earlier to show any resistance, i think ross would have turned around. and there is also very strong showing by the marines, who are serving as infantry to barney and his flotilla men who form a third line of defense. after the first two lines of maryland militia are scattered, the british have to charge uphill into barney's guns and there is some very heavy fighting, and i would say that this battle was not -- was not a done deal that barney comes close to turning it around. runs out of ammunition. and the british proved to be too much. he's desperately wounded. the british after a few hours of fighting then are left with an open road into washington. winder retreats all the way through town to georgetown and decides that's not far enough.

he goes to tenley town where the heights there. you see the burning starting to begin. he decides he's too close. he goes all the way to the montgomery courthouse. that was not his finest moment. we can see the path that madison would take. and i think we'll hear more about that later today. i won't go into much detail about that either. the british, once they enter town, i think it is quite clear that ross had come to the conclusion, even as their entering town, that the federal buildings in washington would be burned. if they couldn't receive a healthy ransom for it. and, in fact, after one incident at the belmont home where they come under sniper fire, they get to work and the capital is soon in flames, the americans

themselves burn the washington navy yard, which is just stocked full of timber and tar and all sorts of naval supplies. and this is really what makes some of the largest fires. and you have -- we're speaking earlier of conflagrations. this is what you see, the sight of the navy yard burning from very far away and the sheets of flame winding up from the capital can be -- are visible as far away as fredericksburg, frederick, maryland, and ominously in baltimore they can see the glow in the sky. this was an enormous fire that was burning in washington and then soon the white house itself goes up in flames. we saw this portrait yesterday and you can see that cockburn

doesn't feel a huge measure of regret here. ross had come to share cockburn's view that the burning of washington could be a way of forcing an end to the war. so in the report that he sends to london, very soon after this, ross calls the destruction of washington's building, quote, the opposite of the expedition and makes no mention of retaliation. but instead describes it as a humiliation for the americans that would soon end the war. he wants -- he believes it is going to get the u.s. government's attention and they'll be forced to make peace. he writes, quote, they feel strongly the disgrace of having had their capital taken by a handful of men and blame very generally a government which went to war without the means or the abilities to carry it on. the injury sustained by the city of washington in the destruction of the public buildings has been immense and must discuss the country with a government that

has left them capital unprotected. nonetheless, i think it is fair to say that ross likely would not have consented to burning the federal buildings in washington, had he not thought it justified in response to what the american actions in canada. this isn't what drives him to burn it, but he does feel that they do have some justification here. it is not york that is the justification that is on british minds, it is really newark, which i mentioned earlier, and similar episode at dover on the north shores of lake erie that were really on british minds. now, one point i wanted to make about this moment is that the news quickly arrives within three weeks in great britain that, you know, the capital has

been capture and the building is burned and there is great joy in london, celebrations at hyde park, guns being fired, and a real belief that the war is going to end very quickly and that great britain after two decades is finally going to be able to have a time of peace. but in the weeks that ensue, there is some criticism that surfaces in the european press that notes that napoleon conquered europe without burning the capitals of europe and how come the british weren't able to do the same. and the french particularly liked this line of argument and one of the french papers actually writes that this action in washington is, quote,

unworthy of civilized nations. and it is only then that by november, when there is -- the issue is brought up in parliament, that you hear any mention of york. don graves, a great canadian scholar on the war of 1812 has pointed out that the first mention in parliament of york comes november 8th. so this -- york becomes a justification after the fact for the british actions. and it soon is pretty well accepted and 200 years later, we see some of the results of that. now, three weeks after the attack on washington, the british launch an attack on baltimore and this -- this is an attack that had the british launched immediately after washington, had they gone directly over land as in fact ross considers the outcome could have been very different. but in the three weeks since washington, the militia commander in baltimore, the

baltimoreans had the sense to more or less stage a coup and not let winder take over as he should have, and major general samuel smith is in charge. and unlike winder, he has a scheme of defense and, you know, a real tactical sense and by building a large force of some 15,000 militia that have descended on baltimore from virginia, western maryland, from pennsylvania, and then putting his best men from baltimore city brigade out at a thin point on north point where the british are advancing by land, he's able to in fact delay the british attack and in fact kill general ross in the skirmish that proceeds that battle. and then you have following up on that the attack on ft.

mchenry, which, of course, is what francis scott key accompanied by john skinner and some other americans witness and we won't go into that story. safe to say that i think it is always important to remember that there is a question mark at the end of that first verse that key writes. when he's witnessing this attack, he's not just wondering whether the flag is going to be flying over the ft. mchenry, he's wondering whether the united states is going to survive, you know, three weeks after the destruction of federal washington, it certainly seemed possible that the country was on the brink of collapse. and baltimore and also as don mentioned, lake champlain and more important victory that turns back to the british attack from quebec really, when this news arrives in london, this changes the atmosphere quite a bit. so after the heady rush from

washington's collapse, reality begins setting in. it is worth noting that at gent, on august 24th, the very day that washington is burned, the american delegation was meeting with british commissioners and they were rejecting demands that the british just made, which included creating a 250,000 square mile buffer zone for native americans in the old northwest. would have given great britain military control of the great lakes and navigation down the mississippi. so by the time that the news from baltimore and lake champlain arrives and there is a real realization certainly encouraged by welling ton who is asked for his opinion on the matter and he tells liverpool that you don't really have much of a basis to be making extreme demands here. he advises making peace. this is what happens at the

treaty that is signed december 24th. i think it is worth noting that, you know, i think ross and cockburn came pretty close, really, to realizing their vision. the -- in the end, the capture of washington doesn't really give the british the advantage they hope and they find themselves later on the defensive because of criticism and then you have the results from baltimore and lake champlain, but if washington had been followed up by different results in baltimore, and lake champlain, i think the outcome could have been quite different and the burning of washington,

the federal buildings, would be seen in a different light today. but anyway, with that, i want to stop and take questions. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> i think we would all love to hear that paragraph in your book, that wonderful paragraph about libraries and ladies. okay. >> right. >> secondly, i have a second question, which -- i'm going to sit down. before i can give up the retaliation story, i need a little more clarification. you say it was after -- it was an after the fact justification. and in your talk today, you said that the british chesapeake campaign was retaliation for the american campaign in canada, not specifically york. but in general. but don't you say in your book, that robert ross, in washington, said it was retaliation for york or am i wrong?

>> you're right on that. and in the sense that this is something that is written by dr. yule many years later by an american witness in an account that while very useful has some, you know, leaves some doubts as to the details of certain incidents and recollections of what was said, so this is the only reference to york, only reference to york attributed to ross. and it is not ross himself in his own words and the letters he writes home, he doesn't say anything about york. he doesn't say anything about newark or delaware or anywhere else. he talks about humiliating the americans. i think you also mention the not making war against libraries and ladies, i think in -- that comes from the same account. and i think there is a germ of

truth in all of this. i think ross felt quite embarrassed when he learns that the books of library of congress were actually in the capital building. and he -- he allegedly says, had i known that, we would have taken the books out. and ross, i think, felt a bit uncomfortable about the whole thing of burning these buildings. he had come to the conclusion, though, it was the best way to end this war quickly. and, you know, to the extent that retaliation is motivating him, i really think if he said anything at the time, almost certainly would have been about newark, because this was the issue that had been raised with cochrane. this was the issue that was really -- had really infuriated the british. so i think that -- and the ladies too. i think he was certainly -- i think the idea they wanted to capture dolly madison is pretty ridiculous, the british were interested in capturing james

madison. [ inaudible ] >> and maybe he wouldn't have. i think it is possible. or at least he would have made sure she left. yes, sir. >> earlier mrs. taylor asked don hickey to discuss some of the personalities. could you comment on dewitt clinton and daniel tompkins who were both governor of new york state. and also the landing of money by tompkins to fund new york state's role in the war of 1812, which when he died, he was very -- he was broke. and tompkins went on to serve as monroe's vice president for eight years. could you comment on the role of dewitt clinton and daniel tompkins. >> i probably couldn't say more

than what you have. certainly not an area of expertise for me. but what i would say is that the -- at this time there is sort of a movement towards secession that has been going on in new england. and i think the -- the burning of washington is one of the things that pulls the rug out from that movement because there is quite a bit of outrage that spreads, including up to new england and to new york over the burning of washington. i don't know if anybody else has something to add about it, but -- >> are there any other personalities you want to discuss that had a role in the war of 1812? >> oh, sure, i mean -- you know, i'm always fascinated actually by the role of francis scott key because to me he epitomizes the divisions in the country at this

time. francis scott key, who we see as, you know, the guy who writes the most patriotic of all songs, was a huge opponent of the war. he in particular is appalled at the u.s. actions towards canada, the fact that we're attacking canada, which he views as an innocent third party, and he actually writes a letter to john randolph of virginia, who was the congressman leading the anti-war efforts that key celebrates when one of the u.s. attacks on montreal fails. and he says that to quote patrick henry, if this be treason, i am brace the name traitor. he's a fascinating figure. monroe himself, i think, you know, he really botches things in this story. he jumps on a horse to go scouting out the british as

they're approaching. this is the secretary of state, putting himself in danger's way and he very nearly gets caught by the british down in nottingham. and he also forgets to bring along a spyglass, by the way. so his scouting reports aren't particularly useful. and then at bladensburg, he inserts himself in the chain of command and moves some of the forces around, so that they're not in support of each other. fascinating story, but he and madison, i think, really redeem themselves after the british depart washington. they -- madison spends the last night in refuge in brookville, maryland, and gets the word that the british have withdrawn after 24 hours. and he and monroe immediately ride back to washington. this is a moment when a lot of

people were urging complete capitulation, still has that second british force coming up the potomac river. and just as madison enters washington, there is a big boom coming from down the river. and that's where the british are starting to attack ft. washington, which soon blows itself up, so you have a continued assault on the capital, and at this point, madison and monroe, i think, show their finest moments in their roles and monroe effectively takes over defense of the city. and becomes more or less the acting secretary of war. and one of the good things they have the sense to do is to keep -- not interfere with the defenses of baltimore. and they keep winder out of -- from being inserted back in control there. and i think monroe's actions also in trying to trap the british forces, they're leaving

alexandria were noteworthy. so, yeah, a lot of characters that we haven't been able to speak about that i think deserve more mention. >> could you elaborate a little bit more about the conduct of cockburn and ross in regard to barney as the battle ended. i think that is sort of an interesting story, and i wanted to hear how you felt about it. >> it is very interesting. because when barney is wounded, and he falls into british hands very quickly, a soldier goes to get first its captain wainwright, one of the british naval ship captains and then cockburn arrives as well and ross. and, you know, they are very impressed by the performance of barney and the flotilla men. in fact, ross himself had to take command after colonel william thorton, one of the british brigade commanders led the way had fallen. and they had -- i think they recognized they were on the cusp of maybe losing this battle because barney had initially

been able to drive the british back. he actually even, you know, orders a charge at one point that really throws the british off guard. so they do immediately upon finding him, ross says, well, we're going to issue you a parole, which essentially means that he's not going to be held captive. he can't fight in the war further until he's officially exchanged. but it is a gesture of honor, of respect for barney. and i also would add that as alluded to earlier, the marines were fighting with barney and they fought very well, they suffered 25% casualties, but that's not why the british left the marine commandant's home. you -- it comes down to evans writes in a memo that, well, we were going to burn that house, but the neighbors pleaded that it was going to -- it would spread to other homes, the area around the navy yard and marine barracks was very heavily

populated at the time. there is a big wind blowing. so they may have respected the marines, but that's not why they saved that building. >> you think that part of the battle was overlooked pretty much by history. it seems like it hasn't been mentioned at all. >> which part? >> barney's -- >> i don't know if it has been overlooked. i think there is -- there is a general recognition that, you know, barney was a real hero. there was a great event in bladensburg, just two weeks ago, ten days ago, where a memorial sculpture to barney and to -- includes a marine and a flotillaman was unveiled. and i think that's a -- was a fitting gesture. so i think, you know, at least among people who paid some attention to this fight, there is a recognition that barney and the flotilla men really were a

high point in what was otherwise a pretty dismal day. yes, ma'am. >> i'll stand up. i object to the idea that washington was burned because of what americans did in york. and canada. and so i spent a good deal of time researching what did happen in york, now toronto. the americans, yes, i think did burn the parliament building. but it wasn't american troops. it was american settlers who were fed up with being british subjects, when they were used to being citizens. and they were just plain fed up with the british administration and with the local administration and so one way

they had been fighting in parliament, actually, against certain laws that the governor was trying to pass, that they thought were oppressive. and so i think that when the americans attack that the local settlers just said to themselves, okay, here, we'll get even. and they burned the parliament buildings. if anybody did, it might have been the people that were released from the jail, they were jail birds, then they might have been in there because the british jailed traitors. and so they may have had a good reason to burn the parliament buildings. but so they may have joined some of the american settlers and burned the parliament buildings, but it wasn't the american

troops. >> well, there is still a great bit of mystery and uncertainty about exactly what happened. nobody can say with certainty who burned the parliament, certainly americans of some sort, more than likely deserved some of the responsibility. but, again, this was not something that was sanctioned by the american government. any other questions? >> yes -- the york issue. i do agree with you. your book was great and i encourage anyone to read it, everyone to read it, i should say. the point that i find fascinating with york is that the u.s. navy has some items, still has some items that were taken from the parliament at york. they're at the naval academy

museum. the guilded lion, at one time, they had the parliamentary mace which was returned by franklin roosevelt to canada sometime in the '30s and then there is some standards that were taken from there. which suggests that there was some official involvement or else they took them away from the guys who burnt it. there also was a wig or they said it was a scalp initially, but it turns out it was the speaker's perry wig. it was not a human scalp, it was the -- so, any reaction? >> well, yeah, there is a lot of items that if the rightful owners knew were being held by the u.s. government, either at the naval academy or other places, probably will be mobs

demanding their return. i don't know the provenance of those items. but i wouldn't be surprised at all if some items were taken as souvenirs by the troops who had fought there at york, if they were brought back by the troops and ended up somehow at places like the naval academy. it wouldn't surprise me at all. >> anybody else? yes, ma'am. >> general ross issued an order that there would be no burning of private buildings, yet admiral cockburn burned the natural intelligencer office. i was wondering because you said that cockburn was interested in laying waste to the -- why that didn't happen to the rest of washington? >> ross was certainly in charge of the forces going into washington, so i think cockburn was chomping at the bit at times, there were several buildings he wanted to burn. now, including a bank building. now, he was going to burn the national intelligencer and was getting ready to do that, when, again, these neighbors that keep on showing up at different points appeal to him saying if you like that, that building on fire, the fire is going to spread. it is going to ignite other buildings.

and this is actually -- this actually happens on several occasions, the fires from the capital, for example, are responsible for igniting the -- that home that george washington had once owned that was basically collateral damage from the capital fire. so cockburn doesn't actually burn that building, but cockburn, you know, ross keeps cockburn largely in check, but there was no way that cockburn was going to be denied the pleasure of doing something to the national intelligencer, which, you know, had compared him to attila the hundred and many other barbarians. and, i think the americans were quite lucky that ross was in charge of that attack. in fact, you know, he's nearly shot at the belmont home at the start of the british arrival in

washington. and some of the british troops told civilians that, you know, if ross had been killed, you know, this town would have been absolutely decimated. and i don't really doubt that. okay, well, thank you very much. >> we have a brief ten-minute break. here are some highlights for this coming weekend. nebraska supreme court will hear oral argument on the keystone xl pipeline. former fcc commissioners with campaign 2014 gearing up, watch the latest debates on c-span sunday at noon, kay haggan and tom tillis. jerry brown and republican nominee neil kashkari. john yoo shares his opinion on international law and what

effect it has on the behavior of powerful nations. mike gonzalez on how he thinks republicans can make gains for the hispanic vote. sunday at noon, our three hour conversation and your phone calls with the former chair of the commission on civil rights. friday night at 8:00 eastern. authors and historians talking about the burning of washington during the war of 1812. sunday night at 8:00, the anniversary of president gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching, call us at 202-626-3400. or you can you can e-mail us ats at c-span.org, join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. also speaking at the symposium of the british burning

of washington, d.c., during the war of 1812, homilly schulman director of the dolly madison project. this is about 45 minutes. >> our next speaker will be talking about dolly madison and the british invasion of washington, d.c., in the war of 1812. we already heard some things about dolly madison's role in the war of 1812. now we'll hear more from holly schulman, who is a director of the todd madison papers. it was publicered by the university of virginia press in 2004. dr. schulman has continued to publish dolly documents as the

dolly madison digital edition for which she currently has grants for both the national historic preservation and records commission of the national archives and from the national endowment for the amenities. please welcome holly schulman. [ applause ] >> those of you who are interested in the full papers of dolly payne todd madison, what i do now is as complete as possible edition of the dolly madison papers in the dolly madison digital edition. like the book, it's published by the university press. unlike the book is published by their electronic imprint, the name which is rotunda. if you go and you take a look at it, i hope you enjoy it.

do you want me to do -- oh, okay. having said that, i want to thank, of course, as everyone speaking as thanked, the three organization that is have sponsored this and thank them for putting on a conference which is so beautifully focused so the papers can talk to each other in a way that doesn't happen at conferences. i would like to thank kathryn al gore who is over there for introducing a more general view of dolly madison. what i'm going to do today is talk about dolly, not the burning of the white house, but

her saving of the portrait of george washington. that really is the topic of my -- it's narrow, but the question then is, what could we learn from it. there was a famous biologist at harvard who once gave an image of looking, from a distance, at a fence, which had a knot hole in it. if you looked at this knot hole from a distance, it was a small part of the fence. if you put your eye to the knot hole, you could see the world. and yes, he studied eyes. in any case, let me begin here. two stories about the war of 1812 are lodged in our collective memory. they remained in the present. they are told in books, in textbooks and in popular culture. one captures american victory over the british during the war. the other symbolizes american resistance.

the first, a military success is about andrew jackson, who defeated the british in new orleans in january of 1815. the second is an act of defiance. that one is about dolly madison, who on august 24, 1814 saved the portrait of george washington from british. jackson embodies american american nation. dolly is audacity mixed with resolution and em bodies the weak, but pure, an unarmed woman, against the strong but foul, the enemy army. they did route the enemy, although it was an empty -- lives were lost in vain. in fact, we do not know whether or not dolley madison saved the portrait of george washington.

no letters written either by dolley or james on august 24th have survived. there's very little from august 23rd. in other words, the documentary evidence for that day is either circumstantial or post factum. what dolley did when the british invaded washington remains a bit uncertain, into a vacuum of information, dolley imposed her own story. to understand the story of dolley and the burning of the white house, we need to explore what we know happened and how and why she shaped her own legend. let us start with what we know from dolley's personal and collateral correspondence. james madison was off with the general and wrote her more than

once on august 23rd, but only one letter survived. in it, the president stated that he had heard encouraging news about the enemy troops. but the information was not reliable. he hoped she might see him by the evening, which, of course, did not happen. equally, dolley could not have known that at the time. the next day, august 24th, we have a letter from eleanor young jones. she was the wife of the secretary of the navy, william jones. she wrote excusing herself from their dinner engagement that day at the president's house. jones admitted her fears in the, quote, present state of alarm, but following social protocol, menned she imagined, quote, it will be mutually convenient to

dispense with the enjoyment of your hospitality today and therefore pray you to admit this as an excuse. it's probably the only thing we know about that dinner. she was waiting to hear from dolley's sister, anna payne cuts. anna payne cuts was also in washington. she wrote a quick message. it was undated but probably also composed on august 24th and her tone was frantic. quote, tell me, for god's sake where you are and what you are going to do, she dispaired. quote, we could hear nothing but what is horrible here. i know not who to send this to and will say but little. soon afterwards, william jones, who we can identify here as the husband of eleanor young jones,

also secretary of the navy, wrote an undated short memo outlining his actions on the 24th, presumably quite close to events. he penned this quite close to the events. he said he had left the navy yard about 3:30 in the afternoon, which is to say about a half hour after he had initially been due for dinner, with supreme court associate justice gabriel duvall and soon learned that quote, our army was rapidly retreating and that of the enemy advancing rapidly. he and duvall went to georgetown and picked up the jones and carol families as well as dolley, her sister anna, and anna's husband, richard cuts. jones then received word from james madison to go to the works west of georgetown. so, quote, at about 5:00, i set out in the company of the family

of the president, of mr. carol, and of my own with mr. duvall, and proceeded through georgetown to join the president but found that madison had crossed at mason' ferry. by august 29th, newspapers printed an extract of a letter. we are now one step further from, if you will, authenticity. that is to say, its extract rart than whole, and it's printed in a newspaper, so what has happened between its writing and printing we don't exactly know. an extract of a letter to a gentleman in this town stating jacob barker, a wealthy supporter of president madison had handed dolley into a kaerj in the moments before the british arrived. the president had asked barker

to remove the portrait of george washington along with a silver plate from the house. there are two additional 1814 letters of dolley's from that fall. both are addressed to women friends. in the fall, undated, dolley sent minerva rogers a quote, pure wine saved from the president's house the morning of its destruction. rumors had spread after the invasion that the soldiers had drunk all the wine and that none was left. this leaves us to wonder whether dolley was giving out bottles of salvaged wine to make the point the rumors were only that, rumors, and that the president and his household were braving the circumstances and doing well. perhaps it was simply a gesture of warm regard to a woman friend.

regardless, the president's wine, like the government and the country, had survived. on december 3rd, 1814, dolley wrote mary elizabeth hazel, wife of the architect benjamin henry latrobe and the daughter of a philadelphia merchant. the two men -- the two women had been friends from the 1780s and the 1790s when dolley lived in philadelphia and mary elizabeth had very much been a partner in decorating the president's mansion although like mrs. eames, a couple 150 years later, she was left out of the written picture. dolley told her friends she, dolley, stayed in the president's mansion until just two hours before the british reached the capitol.

quote, on that very day, i sent out the silver and in parenthesis, nearly all, and velvet curtains and general washington's picture, the cabinet papers, a few books, and a small clock. everything else belonging to the public are own valuable stores of every description, a part of my clothes, and all of my servants' clothes, et cetera, et cetera, in short, it would fatigue you to read the list of my losses or an account of the general dismay or particular distresses of your acquaintance. this letter simply enumerated what dolley had saved, lost, and how she felt about it. the tone is one of loss, not self kin gratulations for her bravery or courage. sheer articulated her rage at the british and her feelings of

inadquency in the face of the army but accepted the fact she had to flee. i think, and we could come back to this later. this is probably the best piece of evidence there is that dolley in fact had a hand in saving george washington's portrait. however, also, you note, a letter that is never or rarely quoted. that's what we have. a complete documentary evidence of dolley madison and what she did on august 23rd and 24th. the contemporary documentary evidence, how she fled, what she rescued and there are not many details. madison was out of town, she held down the domestic front. she described herself as a woman without fear. the city was terrified. her sister, anna, was flying around in dread and in the face of enemy fire, she canceled her dinner party, saved what she could of national importance, including the famous portrait of

george washington, then left town in the company of her sister, friend and other members of a party made up at least of cuts, carol, jones and duvall. her mood was surprisingly composed as she told ludroatrla was so unfeminine as to be free from fear. in the hub bub of the moment, few of the documents talk about the saving of the portrait of george washington. this, however, was the moment she most wanted remembered. it's what she most wanted remembered about her years as a president's wife. indeed, the years that she reigned over washington. it was not dolley madison as a hostess or a conciliator of

political factions or as the arbiter of fashion. it was dolley madison as the hero heroine of the war of 1812. in 1834, we have now skipped 20 years. in 1834, she finally got her chance to present her interpretation of events. the occasion for this was that she received a request from margaret baird smith, the wife of the editor of the national intelligencer and also writer and novelest, to supply smith with material for a bigragical sketch of mrs. madison for the third volume of the portrait gallery of distinguished americans. dolley seems to be ambivalent. she sent smith little about her origins and of that, some was intentionally incorrect.

she was concerned about her privacy and that of her husband and she instructed her niece, mary cuts, not to give smith, quote, anything of importance in my own eyes. dolley stalled, leaving smith (z largely to write from her own memory. but in one particular matter, dolley mailed margaret smith a letter. the letter she told smith she sent her sister lucy in august of 1814. it was clearly important. quote, if you have lost or omitted to give it to her, it will be much to my injury, she instructed her nieces. so they passed on dolley's document. what exactly her nieces handed smith is controversial. dolley only sent a copy of an alleged original, not the

original document itself. she told smith she didn't have it. lucy did. she told her niece, mary cuts, that mice had eaten it. moreover, the letter is and someone yesterday alluded to it, talking about this in an article for the white house history. the letter that dolley sent to margaret smith is surprisingly unhurried for something written in such tense circumstances and oddly purposive and formal. the letter of august 14 is about courage and bravery and her determination to prevail against the enemy and champion american independence. and it worked. to this day, when americans were

recalling dolley madison, they thank her for saving the portrait of george washington, emblem of america. they imagine her standing up to the enemy. their picture is of a woman who might be placing a flag in front of the troops, victorious in her goal. in this letter given to margaret baird smith, dolley madison stamped her own image. the question of who, exactly, saved the washington portrait and how they did so, however, became a matter of controversy in the 1840s. now we have skipped even later. by this time, of course, james madison is dead. dolley does not die until 1849 and she becomes part of this newspaper discussion of what actually happened. in april of 1847, a man named robert depester, a new york merchant living in connecticut sent a letter to a philadelphia newspaper.

he introduced jacob barker, then living in new orleans, a patriot and warm supporter of the war of 1812 and presented the narrative barker had written spelling out his own version of how george washington's portrait had been saved in 1814. he stated his purpose was to make sure that mrs. madison received the credit for saving the portrait of george washington in august of 1814. what followed was barker's tale of events in which he insisted dolley instructed him and depester to save the portrait and that while she rode off in a carriage, the two men had taken the painting, released it from its frame, but kept it on its stretcher and taken it to northern virginia. there, they found a widow to hold on to it temporarily and a few months later, the two men presumably retrieved it and returned it to its rightful

owner. what appears to have set him off and inspired barker to write his tale was a rumor. supposedly circulated through andrew jackson that it had been an man named john mason who had saved the portrait. depester wrote dolley on may 5, 1847 that it was his wish to publish barker's narrative, quote, relating to the saving of the portrait of washington. credit has been given to others. he sent barker's piece to dolley. silence then ensued for ten months. presumably, dolley did not respond. ten months later, he said daneial carol, a new actor in the drama said credit belonged to his father, not to her. would dolley send a note confirming their claim dolley ordered the picture saved,

this is depester saying would dolley please send the note, confirming she had ordered the picture saved and delegated that task to depester and barker. dolley complied, on may 29, 1848, depester advised her daniel carol was still crusading for the reputation of his father. thus -- then in 1865, and this is after dolley was dead, but i just want to add this one piece. there was an additional contender for who saved the national icon. that was 1865. the contender was already dead for a year at that time. but that makes four, other than dolley, john mason, charles carol and jacob barker. let's look at who they were. john mason, who plays the most minor role here was a friend of the madisons. the son of george mason, father

of the bill of rights, a merchant, banker and businessman who served in the war of 1812 and lived on an island now known as roosevelt island in the potomac river between georgetown and virginia. he never claimed glory, but there was gossip jackson asserted the honor for mason. it's not known why. we do know that john mason was with james madison on the 23rd and 24th and not in washington, d.c. john pierre was born in france and immigrated to the united states around the time of the french revolution. president madison hired him as a chef and he remained in that position until the british razed the building. thereafter, he worked at the

bank of the united states and bank of the metropolis. he was the madison's caretaker for the house on la fayette square down the block after they acquired it from the cuts family. dolley and he remained in touch throughout her life. he did not die until 1864. in their correspondence, there's no whisper of him being responsible for taking down the washington painting. but then he wanted her to remain -- wanted to remain her friend, her aide, and in her employ and would have had no reason to contradict her version of the events on august 24th. he never claimed the honor but james madison's butler, paul jennings, did so for him, and may i point out that we have the pleasure this morning of having a direct descendant of paul jennings with us.

in the former slave memoir, which was published in 1865, one year after his death, jennings recounted that while it had often been asserted when dolley escaped from the president's house, quote, she cut out from the frame the large portrait of washington and carried it off. this is totally false. rather, quote, john and mcgraw, the president's gardner, took it down and sent it off on a wagon. that leaves us with a question, why would paul jennings say it was suisaux and not madison who was responsible for saving the portrait of george washington? sit, of course, possible that he was one of the men who took down the painting and thus should have received some measure of credit.

the greatest argument against that scenario is that jennings wrote that he used a penknife to cut the painting out of its frame. we know, however, when the painting underwent renovation, in the 20th century, quote, the artist found on examination the canvas had never been cut. that doesn't mean it didn't come out of the frame, it stayed on the stretcher, but the picture was not cut with a penknife. the interesting thing about paul jennings is he did have an agenda. jennings was born in 1799 in montpelier. he was a slave and skilled domestic worker who at various times was probably a footman, a waiter, and a porter before he became james' valet. his father was white. his mother was a combination of black and native american. he served the madisons for many

years as a trusted slave/servant. there were real and painful problems in the relationship with his mistress. after james' death, dolley took paul to washington, which separated paul from his wife fanny, which meant they could only see each other occasionally. this remained true, even after she took a serious fall in 1844 that led to her death. dolley then gave him leave to go and mourn and grieve back in orange county. in 1845, dolley waffled about him, even drawing up emancipation documents then decided not to do that, but rented him out to president polk. in 1846, she sold him to an insurance agent for $200. six months later, senator daniel webster bought jennings for $120, then allowed him to

purchase his own freedom at $8 a month. jennings was freed in 1847 and therefore became an abolitionist. he probably was before, but he became a more active aboliti abolitionist who surely must have been upset at the treatment dolley meated out on one of her slaves who tried to escape to freedom on the ship called the "pearl" in 1848. by the time jennings wrote his memoir, he must have disliked his former mistress. as a black man and former slave to president madison, he could not say this publicly. so, he included the one hurtful thing he could that dolley had not saved the washington portrait. the man had no motive to promote himself, but jennings did. daniel carol cared very much about who got the credit for saving the portrait. he presented the motive as dual

to give credit to his father and reveal what he felt were barker's concealed but self-serving motives. carol said as much in his letter to the editor of the new york herald when he wrote the professed objective of the publication was to do justice to the venerable mrs. madison, but, he continued, the most superficial observer could not fail to perceive that while credit is awarded to that venerable lady, much more is claimed for mr. jacob barker himself. charles carol was a member of a wealthy catholic family. he moved to washington in 1811. in 1813, he purchased dumbarton house frauf joseph nurse. he was a member of the board of bank of washington and a supporter of the president. charles carol may or may not have been at the mansion and may or may not have been due credit,

but his son daniel undermined his testimony when he asserted carol ate dinner that day at the president's mansion. it's highly unlikely dinner was served or eaten that day. later, daniel carol, according to barker, offered to produce witnesses, but did not reveal names, thus, raising the question of anonymous witnesses. the question raised is why did daniel carol harbor ill will against jacob barker? it's possible he simply wanted the credit to stay in the family and felt injured by barker's testimony, especially as barker originally misidentified his father as charles carol of duddington rather than of bellevue. it is possible an issue lay between them which this author is not aware. it is possible daniel carol felt barker was using the incident of

the portrait to bolster a political career of which he, carol, disapproved. jacob barker was campaigning to become a member of the house of representatives from new orleans in 1847. barker was born a quaker. he was nominated to the position of congressional candidate at an independent convention. he was a democrat and supported zachary taylor for president. jacob barker proclaimed, quote, slavery was the greatest curse that was ever inflicted on the south. his race coincided with his bid to be recognized, not as a hero of the wear of 1812 but as the major ally and defender of its greater heroine, dolley madison. carol had two possible motives for his claims. he may have disliked barker

either personally or politically, and he may have felt his father simply deserved the credit he had never received and if you're curious, no, barker did not win the election. finally, there were jacob barker and robert depester. barker, by personality was an assertive man. he was known to be resilient, flamboyant. and pugnacious, but his claim to have carried out dolley's orders was backed by three specifics. to begin with, he was a strong supporter of james madison and the war of 1812. thus, when dolley asked for or received his help, it was not from a passing stranger. money was hard to come by after the war, especially after the new england banks refused to lend any to madison's administration, and barker was one of the four men who lent money. he opened up a subscription to fund the effort. accounts of carting the picture

off and bringing it back several weeks later. he supported dolley's account and in turn she supported his narrative in a letter she wrote him in 1847. her confirmation was argued by her nephew james cox who gave an argument before the historical society, but in it he not only reprinted the two letters from dolley that barker had included in his own memoir, but stated dolley gave the orders and mr. jacob barker and robert depester of new york aided by two colored boys took the portrait from the floor where mrs. madison left it. cuts only knew what his aunt told him. in 1814, he was 9. cuts wanted to reinforce any version his aunt told. cuts certainly had the motive, feeling a loyalty to support dolley's version of event.

depester and barker for their part may have believed that the tale would help barker win his election that he ultimately lost, or they may have been defending their memory of what actually happened. or both. historians cannot establish with absolute certainty what happened to the portrait of george washington on the afternoon of august 24th. as i have said, the best evidence we have is dolley's letter to mary elizabeth. the portrait was an icon of tremendous international importance. had the british captured it, they might have burned it in effigy or paraded it around the streets of london. that the americans saved it, a symbol of prowess. it is quite possible dolley did in fact order the painting to be saved. she understood its iconic value but there's no certainty. so, what do we learn from the

story? the first is the story of evidence, which historians and journalists have repeated endlessly which is you need to be certain what your evidence is and that you need to know what were the motives of anybody saying anything because all of us have a reason to say what we say. and finally, we need to be cautious that into a space that is empty, something will prevail. in this case, it was dolley's own letter. we learned something about dolley madison. we learned number one she wanted to be know as the savior of george washington's portrait. she wanted to be honored for bravery and courage in war. most important, she felt the single anecdote could save her husband's reputation on the day the british raised the white house.

when she sent a letter to margaret baird smith and then confirmed that version in the 1840s, she not only promoted her own image, but also did what a wife should do to create the best possible public relations for her husband on a disastrous day in american history. >> now, let me just add here, what i haven't included and didn't have the time and space to include are all the negative things that were being said about the madisons at the time. so, as a backdrop to dolley's determination to put the best face forward, we also must remember she was doing this with this, if you will, this background for her that she had been criticized and her husband had been criticized.

it's not simply that dolley had some ego, she did, but she was a loyal champion of her husband. she would have gone out of her way at any point in her life to defend james madison. [ applause ] any questions? is my evidence so conclusive no one has any -- [ inaudible question ] >> the previous speaker said that monroe came back about two days after the burning. when did she come back -- >> at about the same time. the first night she -- oh, what was happening during the next two days before the madisons returned to washington, d.c. they were both floating around the countryside.

there are various legends about this. it seems as if dolley went to the house of a mrs. love, whose parents actually were at her wedding to james madison, but she, herself, was also a member of the lee family, a very federalist family. love would visit the madisons during his presidency in the white house, but her father would not. then she apparently went to a tavern and there are stories about the tavern and people said oh, we have been destroyed in washington and we won't let you into the tavern, how can we admit you into this space? what do we know? we know it's in the newspapers. we don't have any -- that's what i'm trying to say. we have very little evidence. they were too busy to write and it's possible if something had been written, dolley or james would have destroyed it.

>> it's a wonderful talk, so, if i could encourage people to come to the mike, by the way, but if i could ask, so you have the wonderful collection of letters. i remember reading some of her letters where she's sleeping with the saber under the bed. can you talk about the letters, the timing of them? they feel like public relations campaign and i wondered if that was true? >> i don't think so. i think she really wasn't afraid. why she wasn't afraid is embedded in who she was. she said yes, she was not afraid. she kept a tunisian saber by her side, slept with a tunisian slabslab saber by her side. i think the publicity campaign really was this two-day letter, supposedly written to lucy in august 23rd, 24th, 1814 because that went public. that went public in a publication of note.

she was the only woman who would be included in that volume. margaret baird smith was a woman of great repute, a noted writer, and margaret baird smith republished that letter. that's how we have the letter. we don't have her copy of it, we have the -- well, we do, but what people know is this printed version that margaret smith included in her portrait, or if you will, the first biography of dolley madison in 1834. i think that was a spin or a public relations campaign, which is why we have to treat it as that. that's why i say that her letter in december of 1814, to me, is better evidence than this famous letter school children still read. >> in the washington, d.c. tour

guide. there's quite a few tour guides here. i have a question. this is not been mentioned at all. i understood, i learned that she not only saved the wonderful portrait of george washington, but she also saved her portrait. was that saved at the same time? i haven't heard nobody mention that. thank you. >> he may have evidence, i don't. i have no evidence for that whatsoever. i would put that down to rumor and conjecture. but i absolutely don't know. >> that's how most of us learned that. >> you know, there was also a part of the urban legend about dolley is she saved the state papers, and in fant, it was steven pleasanton who saved the state papers. he was the clerk in the state department. so there was a famous,

reasonably famous picture done in the early 19th century about the macedonian -- who mentioned that yesterday? andrew lambert did, that dolley madison has perhaps trampled on it. we have no evidence of that, either. but the portrait shows her trampling on the flag and it shows james madison at the dinner and in 1840s, when those who were around during the war are trying to preserve what they consider accurate memory, edward coles, her cousin and james madison's secretary said, well, james madison wasn't there. dolley was there and she was standing with edward coles. if you go to the digital edition, you can find that

picture, but the picture is a lie. or it's myth. or, it's a wonderful, sort of popular culture image that portrays something about dolley madison that wasn't true but carries a kind of truth that we want to believe. >> last question -- >> you said something that could be taken here as sacrilegious. i think most of us don't know what you meant and we would like an explanation. you referred to george mason as the father of the bill of rights. >> all right. fair enough. george mason. yes, okay. i stand corrected. >> when i first heard your talk and you quoted the original letter of dolley madison, there

was the phrase cabinet papers. could it be -- now, do you know what she meant? could it be that there were notes of cabinet meetings? >> could. >> that are different than the bill of rights and constitution and declaration of independence? >> exactly. there was a paper in the white house history about stephen pleasanton that i haven't read yet, but we should probably all read that. >> there is an article by jesse craps in our hand out on saving the records during the war of 1812. >> isn't there something also in the white house historical society? >> i don't know. >> so, it says here, this is a copy of her letter from the dolley madison digital edition. at this late hour, a wagon has been procured. i have filled it with plate and

valuable portable articles belonging to the house. let's see. my husband desired me to be ready at the moment. i have pressed as many cabinet papers into trunks that fill one carriage. that is what you are referring to. the answer is they may have been in -- they didn't have filing cabinets. be stephen pleasanton had taken the state department papers but there were other papers that needed to be saved and they were in a cabinet. and she did not say anything beyond that. there's no evidence she actually did that other than she said she did that. 20 years later, i don't -- i

think we need to take it with a grain of salt and not worry about it too much. what we really need to understand is what dolley madison was trying to achieve for herself and her husband. >> i think the problem is the cabinet was on the second floor of the white house. >> you know much more about that than i do. >> and the papers, the famous papers, the state papers were in a different building entirely. >> pleasanton took them from the building and she stuffed what she could into these trunks. was it a cabinet? >> a cabinet room. >> it was a cabinet room, all right, so we have it here on authority that interprets this. so it makes sense. she took what was from the white house or as much as she could take on her husband's instructions. again, we don't -- what i'm trying to say here is, did she?

we know she said she did and maybe she did. i'm not saying she didn't. i'm saying we don't have conclusive evidence that she did. so, whether that kind of conclusive evidence is important to you as a citizen, as an interpreter, as a historian, a journalist, you know, i'm a documentary editor. i stand corrected by ken boling and i should actually add that into a note that specifies it for the dolley madison digital edition, but we only know what we know. >> we are out of time. >> okay. >> may i ask one more question, please? [ applause ]

here are some highlights for this coming weekend. friday, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, the nebraska supreme court will hear an oral argument on the keystone xl pipeline, saturday at 6:00 p.m. on the communicators, michael cops and robert mcdowell. with campaign 2014 gearing up, watch the latest debates on c-span. sunday at noon, debates between incumbent democratic senator kay hagan and thom tillis. and from the california governors race, jerry brown and republican nominee neel kashkari. friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, john yew shares his poin on international law and what effect it has on the behavior of powerful nationals. mike gonzalez and how hispanics can make gains in the vote. and sunday, our three-hour conversation and your phone

calls with the former chair on civil rights. friday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3, authors and historians talk about the burning of washington dern tduring the war of 1812. saturday, the building of the hoover dam, and 8:00, the anniversary of the pardon of richard nixon. find our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400, send us a tweet, or join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. also from the symposium on the british burning of washington, d.c. during the war of 1812, remarks from ralph eshelman. he's a historical consultant to the national park service for the star spangled national historic trail. this is about 50 minutes.

our final speaker this morning, ralph will provide us with more historical fact about some of the historical myths that have grown up around the war of 1812. resources in maryland, the national parks service and protection program and served as a consultant for the star spangled trail. he has published five books in the district of columbia and a guide to historic sites in the district of columbia and has appeared in six documents on the war of 1812. in 2009 he was designated an henry colonel of the ft. mchenry guard by the national park service. that's a far greater honor than being designated as the colonel of the d.c. militia.