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.

in the war of 1812, obviously. so it's my pleasure to welcome colonel eshelman to the podium. [ applause ] good morning, everyone. thank you. that was a kind introduction. i have never been called colonel when i'm been introduced. thank you very much. i want to add to the accolades expressed about the wonderful job the partners and all the individuals have done to put this symposium together. i have thoroughly enjoyed it. i hope you have as well. we still have an afternoon to go as well. itis not over and i'm looking forward to it. before lunch, which is an important thing for all of us, i have a few words i would like to say about some of the myth that surround washington, d.c. specifically, i'm going to talk about three myths. i'm going to present them to you in the form of a question. the first one is did the british

really burn washington city? question number two. is the white house really called the white house because it was painted white because of the scorch marks when the british burned it in 1814? the third one is, did the great storm that came through this region, not just washington, but the following afternoon, put out the fires and save the city? now, because we are talking about myths, i guess you have already figured out the answer to all of these. but, i would be curious with a show of hands, how many of you have heard of the myth of the great storm? whether you believe it or not? okay. i was correct in taking the observation that many people have heard about that. the title is slightly different from what you have in your program but myths from the war of 1812, i think sounds better

than myths during the war of 1812. some of these actually came about after the war, not necessarily during the war. let's go ahead and jump in and tackle this thing. i wanted to acknowledge there's already been a book that's been done by don hickey. you heard from don this morning. he was the first speaker. he did an excellent job. he's done a whole book on the myths of the war of 1812. this is the cover page for it. in it, he has a quote and i will read it. the war of 1812 is a conflict that carries an unduly heavy burden of mythology. much of it propagated by 19th century historians and arriving mainly from national chauvinism. i would like to add to that, many scholars, writers, historians, teachers, professors were continuing to propagate a lot of that. we are never going to be able to

get rid of these myths and misunderstandings of history. it's just a part of the fabric of history today. it behooves us to try to know what are the kernels of truth. that's why i enjoyed holly's paper. she helped us understand the myths and misunderstandings behind dolley madison. the first question, did the british really burn washington? i'm going to start out in a peculiar way. i am showing you the actual logo and title of this very symposium. i'll just read it to you. america under fire. mr. madison's war in the burning of washington city. one of the very myths i want to talk about today. i'm going to go off on a tangent and you'll understand why. if you look at the artwork, the image that is there, and if you remember during dinner last night, bill seal talked about the burning of the white house.

he mentioned that some of the british sailors and soldiers had javelins wrapped in rags, soaked with oil. on the command by the officer you can see on the right hand side, when he fired a pistol, they all simultaneously, supposedly threw these javelins through the broken windows of the upper level of the white house to set it on fire. now, this is an account. it exists. i ask you, is it real? because when i think about that, i have a lot of questions about it. number one, would the british have actually carried javelins from their landing at benedict? i don't think that's very likely. but, it is likely that the british were carrying pikes, an anti-boarding weapon that was used by sailors and we know at

the battle of cox field, which took place a few days earlier from now, 200 years ago, they just had a big celebration august 31st, we know there were 40 pipemen that were part of the british contingent that attacked an american unit over on the eastern shore of maryland. so, maybe it's more likely that if, in fact, this occurred, they were probably pikes. that's my guess. if you're not familiar with a pike, it's an elongated wooden handle with a sharp, metal point on the end of it. but, wouldn't it also make sense if you are going to take the time to take all of these flammables and pile them up as bill talked about last evening, and then put oil on them, why wouldn't you just go ahead and light it and then run out of the building? this is a big deal according to this account. the only reason i'm going through this with you this

morning is there are two additional accounts of how the british burned some of the public buildings in washington. they are very different from this account. so how do we know? just like holly was talking about, how do we know what might have happened there. even though this happens to be an account by the british. so, take a look at some of the book that is have been written. very good books. the first one, which is on your left is the burning of washington, the british invasion of 1814 written by anthony pitch. an excellent book. i have read it from cover-to-cover. i refer to it frequently. tony, in my opinion, did the best job up to that time that's ever been done on our understanding of what happened in washington when the british occupied washington. it's interesting he chose the title, "the burning of washington." if you look at the right hand

side, this is a book not as well known, but also an excellent book by carol and it was published in 2005. the title of it is "august 24, 1814: washington in flames." you can stee burning of the white house. well, there's other books as well and i can't go into all of them or we'd be here all morning. it's interesting if you go to andy tully's book, "when they burned the white house," that was published in 1961. and then "the man who burned the white house" which is essentially a biography of george coburn, who we have already heard a lot during this particular symposium and this was 1987. here are two books where they don't talk about the burning of

washington in the title. they talk about the burning of the white house. just in case you haven't had enough of that, there's the most recent book by peter snow, when britain burned the white house. all of these books are great but the question -- or maybe the point that i'm trying to make is that to the average person when they read a title like that, it's going to give them an impression that is not necessarily what really happened in washington, d.c. and i find it ironic that we have three books that talk about the white house, a very important public building, no question about it, where the president lived and it hurt the morale when you burn the president's house. no question about it. but to me, of all of the buildings that were burnt, the most significant was the capitol building. that's where the seat of government existed. and none of these books have that in their title. just interesting to me.

and just so that you know they are all in good company, this is the title of a chapter in one of my books. "washington is burning." we all do it. almost all of us that have been talking today at the symposium have said it. but how accurate is it? this is the only eyewitness contemporary account -- i shouldn't say account -- illustration which is referred to as the burning of washington. and you can find this online from the library of congress and the first thing that i noticed when i pulled this up and took a look at it is that it was upside down and i'm happy to tell you that i went to the library of congress and told them that it was upside down and they corrected it. when you go online today, it's in its accurate position, and for those of you with good eyes,

you may be able to make out that the guy who did this, willian thornton, you can see his name is right there on the left-hand side. the title of it was "the burning of washington" and i'm sure that thornton himself did not give it that title. it was somebody at the library of congress who was helping people identify this and after studying this, it's very clear to me that this is not the burning of washington at all. it's the burning of the washington navy yard. if you look closely there, you can make out, for example, the sheds where some of the ships would have been kept, and where the masts and the spars and the timbers would have been kept. and if you look even closer, that building right there tells me that's latrobe gate. that's the entrance to the shipyard. for those of you familiar with t. you know that's what it is. and i can't be quite as sure, but when i look at this building right there, the roof line reminds me very much of the

tingey house and that house is where the commandant of the shipyard lived and that house survives today as does barracks b or building number b, and as does latrobe gate. those structures were not burnt but almost everything else was. and so this is what it is titled today when i notified the library of congress and they now call it "waterfront fire probably burning of the washington navy yard, 1814, washington, d.c.," and that's a much more accurate description of what that image represents. now, if you also pay attention, where are most of the flames coming from? right there in the center of that image. and i don't want to put more into this than maybe what thornton was trying to do, but this is a blow-up of that. and if you look very carefully

at it, these do not appear to be buildings to me. and i say that because you can see how they are cantilevered over on the edges. those are the burnings, in my opinion, of some of the ships at the navyyard. and we know there were two frigates that were kept inordinary. these were ships no longer active but still good enough that they didn't need to get rid of them but they just kind of kept them in a mothball and they would sometimes do that by having them floot alongside a wharf, but other times they would literally take them out of the water and you would take all the masts and the rigging and everything down and you might build some type of temporary structure over the top of it to protect the decks. and i believe what we are looking at right there are two of the frigates that burned at the navy yard that night and they are probably the boston and the general green.

very interesting. this is a noncontemporary drawing done by peter wadell and for those of you at the dinner last night when you came into the decatur house, you may have noticed on the left-hand side there was an exhibit area. i hope you took the time to look at some of those exhibits. you may have an opportunity to do that again tonight. i'm not sure. but hanging on the wall were several other paintings done by peter. i like his work a lot. what you're looking at here is his depiction of the burning of the navy yard. so you're standing in latrobe gate and you're looking into the navy yard, which i have done myself many times, and you can make out on the left that's quarters b or building b or whatever you want to call it. and you notice it's not on fire. the tingey house, which is where the commandant would have lived, would be to the left of that and

it's out of perspective of this particular image. and in the background, you can see the flames all about the buildings and you can also see ships in the background that are on fire. and for those of you that may not know what is standing right here in the middle the tripoli monument, which was first erected in the united states as a tribute to those sailors who fought and lost their lives in the barbary wars. and tradition holds that when the british came into the aust the 24th because the navy yard was burnt by the americans, what you're looking at here is the burning that was caused by the u.s. navy, ordered by the secretary of the navy, to keep it out of the hands of the enemy. the next day, the british came back and they checked out the navy yard to see if there was anything that possibly might still deserve some destruction. something that might have escaped the hands of the americans.

and there were a few sheds and there was the cooper's quarters, whatever you want to call it, that they further burned that next morning. but at the same time, they supposedly caused vandalism to that particular monument. now, what's interesting is that that monument was then moved to the west grounds of the capitol. and when the capitol was expanded, it had to be moved a second time. and it was moved to the naval academy where it resides today. so here's a monument that's been in three different places during its history and it has a tie to the war of 1812. this is out of the imax movie that if you have not seen it, i highly recommend it, it's called "star spangled banner anthem of liberty." it was released about a month ago. it has some wonderful illustrations as well as animations about some of the aspects of the war of 1812.

and what you're looking at here is a still -- and i know the lighting is not very good here and so you probably can't see it that well because of the extreme light that we have. but it is showing the navy yard burning on the night of august the 24th, 1814. and if you were able to look at it very closely, you would be able to see ships that are in the water, ships that are in ordinary up on land, all of them burning as well as most of the structures. but you can look and you can see, right there, that latrobe gate is not burning. the tingey house is not burning. quarters "b" is not burning. but what's also interesting is that, can you make out -- there's two additional bridges that are burning and these are also structures that were burnt by the americans. they were not burnt by the british. so we're talking about the stoddard bridge, the upper bridge, that's the bridge that would be essentially where east capitol street is located today.

and then this lower bridge would be essentially the bridge that would be referred to as pennsylvania avenue today or the sousa bridge, whatever you prefer. and if i have one qualm with this particular image that they've done is that bridge should actually be much closer to the navy yard. because of those of you who are familiar with that bridge, you know that essentially it exits right next to where the naval station is. just in case you were wondering, according to "the u.s. navy observatory," sunset on august the 24th, 1814, was at 6:52 p.m. before daylight savings time. the stoddard bridge was set on fire by the americans somewhere between 2:00 and 4:00 in the afternoon. i don't know that it would still have been burning to the extent that you see in this illustration. the pennsylvania avenue bridge was set on fire at about 8:20 p.m. so we're well an hour after

sunset. and the navy yard was set on fire approximately 8:30 p.m. the reason i'm going through all of this detail with you is that when the british are marching into washington, they reach the capitol and they begin to do their first burning, which is actually a structure known as the sewell belmont house, which is two blocks from the capitol. and this takes place at about 9:00. what this means is that as the british are marching into washington, d.c., they can already see parts of the city on fire. not by them but by the americans. and i know that you cannot see this and it's not important that you can, but this is a may 1815 drawing showing the navy yard as it -- they hoped it would appear when they rebuilt it. because this is a letter that

was being done trying to estimate the amount of money that it's going to cost to replace all of these structures that were lost in that burning. and i'm going to come back to that in a minute. this is what the navy yard looks like today and where you have that red bar, that separates below that bar the navy yard that existed in 1814 and then the addition to the navy yard after 1814. so the navy yard was actually bigger today than it would have been in 1814. and if we overlay the two of them, you can see how things have changed over the years. this is the tingey house and the upper left and there's quarters "b" or building "b" on the right that still survive. and this is latrobe gate. so at the bottom, that's what

latrobe gate looks like today and up at the top, that's the design drawings for the original for the latrobe gate and what i have out leaned in red is all that remains today of that original gate. the rest of it has been incorporated into this enlarged structure that now hides the original major portions of latrobe gate. so here is that burning scene again, and i would just ask you to take a look at the details of the tingey house and ask you if in fact that does not look very similar to what you see right there. and if you lay it out, that's exactly where you'd expect it to be in relationship to latrobe gate, in relationship to the rest of the burning navy yard. and i'm going back to that same document that i know you can't see very well. but the reason i'm showing it to you is that up at the top it says, probable cost to refurbish the following buildings. and where i've just circled is

the mast shed. and there it says, to be made of old brick. underneath of it is the timber sheds, to be made of old brick. underneath of that, the rigging loft, new brick. underneath that, can't even read it. the smith's shop. so that's where the blacksmith shop would be, for example. and there it says, old brick. what's going on in the minds of the u.s. navy within a year after the burning of the navy yard is they want to replace these buildings but they don't want to replace them out of wood. they're concerned about the enemy coming back. they're going to try to spent that extra money to make these out of brick. they've learned a lesson. and then the last one is the sawmill which is also made out of new brick. now, this is the navy yard around circa 1833, well after the fire. but you can still see latrobe gate right there.

you can see the capitol, you can see what we would call pennsylvania avenue bridge, and then over here on the left you can see what's known as the long bridge. that actually existed in 1814. that's the bridge that connected washington with alexandria. and the reason i'm showing it to you is that this is the only structure that i know of that was burnt by body the americans and the british at the same time. the americans burnt the side of the bridge over in alexandra, and the british burnt the side in washington, d.c. that was the following day. we're going to get to that in a minute too. i'm going to read this to you. it's a little bit long but i think it will help to give you an understanding. this is by the commandant of the navy yard. describing what had happened. "the buildings destroyed by the yard were the mast shed, the timber shed, the joiner and builders shop, the loft, all is

offices, the medical store, the plumber and smith shops, the blockmaker shop, sought mill and the block mill with all apparatus, tools and machinery, the buildings for the steam engine and all combustible parts of its machinery and materials, the rigging loft, the apartments for the master and the bosun of the yard with all the furniture, the gun carriages, makers, painters shops, with all the materials and tools therein at the time, also the hulls of the old frigates, "boston," "new york," "and "the general green." that's a lot of destruction there, folks. now this is a list, i'm not going to go through the whole thing because it would take me about 15 minutes to read to it you. but on the right-hand side under blue is everything that was burnt by the americans. and on the left-hand side under red is everything that was burned by the british. and the important thing that i'm trying to point out to you here is that if you look at what the americans burnt, most of it is in the washington navy yard. and every one of those things that you read there with one

possible exception, they were all made out of wood. now let's go and take a look at what the british burned and we have the u.s. capitol, which is made out of stone and brick. we have the white house that's made out of stone and brick. we have the treasury which was made out of brick. we have the belmont-sue wall house which was made out of brick. the georgetown -- george washington townhouse on capitol hill which was probably accidentally started on fire by a spark from the capitol. that was made out of brick. the tomlinson's hotel, we don't have absolute proof that this was burned. but there's -- most of the evidence tends to point to it but there's some contrary information there. that was also made out of brick. now, these other buildings that you see below it, it says "houses that were possibly burned," this is based on newspapers' accounts. and there's only one reference and these are in various different newspapers. i can't honestly tell you if

these are houses that actually burnt or whether it's mistakes that the newspapers make, because just like we've heard over and over today, newspaper accounts are not necessarily the most accurate thing in the world. but if these had been supported by other information, primary documents, i'd be more likely to believe that they also burned but i can't find any of that. i just want to remind you that the americans were very upset about what was going on and when they talked about what had happened to washington, they tend to embellish the true facts. and then if you go down below, these were the things that were burnt after the evening of august 24th. so a better way to look at all of this is to compare what was actually burned on the evening of august the 24th. during that night. and you can see there's a very, very big difference there. and when we talk about the british burning washington, we're leaving the average

citizen with this impression that the british came in and they burnt the entire city of washington, d.c. and if you look at this, you can see that the americans burnt a heck of a lot in the city, but you don't hear anybody talking about the american burning of washington, d.c., during the war of 1812, i understand that. but look at all of these buildings over there. and this is the point that i want to emphasize one more time. if you're looking at the burning of the city after the british have come in and gotten to the capitol around 9:00, gotten to the treasury building, gotten to the white house at about 11:00, what do you think the flames would look like? where is the majority and the largest amount of the flames going to be coming from? are they going to come from these brick and stone buildings where you probably have fire issuing out of the roofs and maybe through the windows and doors? or is it most of it going to be coming from a navy yard that's almost entirely made out of wood, along with a whole bunch

of stuff like hemp rope, canvas sails, tar, pitch, all of these things that are very, very highly flammable. i'd like to remind you to go back to that thornton image that everybody believed was the burning of washington. and it's actually the burning of the washington navy yard. and so what i'm trying to get across to you is that i firmly believe that most of the red sky that was seen by people, whether it be in leesburg, virginia, 35 miles away, or in baltimore or even at the mouth of the river aboard one of the ships of the line where they reported in their logbook that they could see a red glow 40 miles away in washington, d.c., i think what those people were seeing were primarily the burning of the washington navy yard, which was set on fire by americans. the fires from the public buildings that the british burned and the few private buildings that they burnt because resistance came from them certainly added to that.

but the flames coming out of those buildings i would argue, would be minuscule compared to what you would see at the navy yard. i don't want to go into a lot of detail here. i'm getting hungry. if you look at the census of 1810, it's estimated that there were 109 total brick or stone buildings in washington. total structures were about 400. now, i want you to know that there's other references that say in 1814 there's possibly 800 to 900 structures. i find it hard to believe that between 1810 and 1814 you'd have that many new structures being built. again, i'm just showing you how inaccurate a lot of this information is. but no matter how you slice and dice it, if we take the maximum number of british structures that were burned or i should say structures that were burned by

the british, it's 19. and that represents about 4.8% of the total structures that existed in washington at that time, if you use the lower number of 400. and when you consider that most of those structures that the british burnt were the stone and the brick, that represents only one point -- sorry, 5.5%. i misstated here. so it's -- if you take all of these structures that were burned, it would represent 5.5. if you only take the other, it would be 1.4%. i've gotten more conservative since i put this particular power point together because we had to do this about ten days in advance and that gives you a lot of time to think about things. and i think it's always better to be conserve tive than to not be. so when i talk about the americans burning 22 buildings, i'm having second thoughts about that. and the reason for it is that i honestly believe that although there's 20 different things that are mentioned by tingey that were burned, i believe many of

those were probably in the same building. so it's not really fair to think that each one of these were necessarily a separate building. so based on that, i'm going to revise this when i actually do the paper so that you'll have a chance to read that. but the percentages are still going to be relatively small. so the important thing i want to get across to everyone here is that if you take a conservative approach to this and you combine the united states and the british and what they burned in washington, d.c., it's going to be less than 10% of the city. i don't think you can say burning less than 10% of the city somehow represents the burning of washington. if you want to be even more conservative and say that maybe there were 450 buildings there by 1814, maybe 500 buildings in 1814, if you want to lower the number of buildings that the americans burnt, you're going to come out with a much smaller percentage. you're talking more about a

total of between 4% to maybe 5% of all of the buildings in the city that were burned. and if you notice that many of the speakers yesterday and today, most of them tried to be very careful when they talked about this issue. and many of them said things like the british occupation of washington, or they would say the british burning of public buildings in washington, to try to stay away from what i essentially call a myth. i'm going to pass over this very quickly. these circles represent buildings that were current. the red circles, british. the blue circles, american. these are some of the depictions you see. none of these are contemporary. and you can imagine that if someone was not there, they're going to in their minds imagine all kinds of wild stuff. and there's nothing that you see here that probably is close to what actually happened. this one is particularly interesting.

steve already showed it to you. this is the alan cox fresco that actually appears in the halls of the capitol today. and it's an interesting image because it attempts to show and you can even see the title "british burn the capitol." the problem with it is that to the right you can see the brick house, the sewall-belmont house. that's the house that survives today although probably partially rebuilt if not majorly rebuilt because the british burned it because shots were fired from it as the british were approaching the capitol building. that building was burnt before the capitol. so this fresco is inaccurate. because if you want to show the belmont-sewell house the way it is right here, you would not have the capitol behind it burning. the sequence is wrong. also, notice how alan is showing the burning there. he's got a british soldier holding up a torch and then down below you can see where they're piling up combustibles and this

guy is trying to start a fire to it. i really doubt that the british attempted to burn the sewall-belmont house from the outside. now, this is a quote -- remember, i told you there's a couple other accounts of how these buildings were burnt. this is by margaret baird smith. you already heard about her when holly gave her presentation. i'm going to read it. "50 men, sailors and marines were marched by an officer silently through the avenue each carrying a long pole to which was affixed a ball about the circum frens avalanche plate. when they arrived at the building --" and i honestly believe she's talking about the president's house but i can't be absolutely sure -- "each man was stationed at a window," interesting interesting, "with its pole and the wildfire against it." at the word of command -- you

see some similarities -- at the same instant the windows were broken and this wildfire thrown in so that an instantaneous conflagration took place and the whole building was wrapped in flames and smoke. the spectators stood in awful silence. the city was light and the heavens reddened with the blaze." and down below you have two examples of what these fireballs would have looked like. these particular ones are not attached to a long pole but the one on the left is made out of clay, the one on the right is actually macrame that's covered with canvas. and in there would be some type of a material that would be very, very prone to being lit to help to start a fire. so there's some similarities to this account, to the first account that i gave you with the jfl lin javelin business, but they're also very different. and i suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle here, and i couldn't tell you which one is better. and this is another one. this is an image that came out of one of the books that i did and it is showing the british

piling up material, and this is in the capitol building. and if you'll notice, the guy on the left, on the back, he's carrying a backpack that would carry two cases for a congrieve rocket. rocket and if you'll notice the man standing on top of the pile, he's literally taking the projectile material that would have been inside of that rocket and he's sprinkling it over the top and then that's how they would light that fire and here is the actual account and this is by benjamin henry latrobe. there was no want of material for the conflagration. for when the number of members of congress was increased the old platform was left in its place and another raised over it giving an additional quantity of dry and loose timber. all the stages and seats of the galleries were of timber and yellow pine. the mahogany desks, table and chairs were in their places. at last they made a great pile in the center of the room of the

furniture and retiring set fire to the quantity of rocket stuff in the middle. the whole was soon in the blaze and so intense was the flame that the glass of the lights was melted." i love that rocket stuff. obviously americans didn't know much about these rockets and they didn't know how to describe them but that would have been the propellant that would send that rocket through the air. so we now have three different accounts as to how the british burned these public buildings. and it's possible all three might have been used. i suspect it's more likely that maybe two of those three were used and one is a slight alteration of the other and it's already been mentioned and so i can save some time and go through this that parts of these buildings were saved. they weren't completely destroyed. this is the old senate chamber. these are the corn cob columns that don already talked about. i think they're beautiful. if you ever have a chance to take a tour of the capitol, please go and see these. this all survived the burning. then here's another quote by

latrobe. "the ruin of the capitol i assure you is a melancholy spectacle, however, many important parts are wholly uninjured and what particularly is gratifying to me, the picture entrance of the house of representatives with its handsome columns, the capitals of senate vestibule, the great staircase, and all the vaults of the senate chamber are entirely free from any injury which cannot be easily repaired." myth number two. is the white house so called because it was burned by the british and they needed to cover the scorch marks? how do we get rid of that? there we go. these are some of the images. in fact, the one that's in the upper left, that's the tom freeman. the poster for that is available in the different shop right here and tonight at the reception there's going to be a little booklet that's been written about that. this is what the white house

looked like after. i told you that i only know of one image of the actual burning of quote-unquote the city. there's many depictions of what happened afterwards but that's the only one that i know of the actual burning. and these are examples of the scorch marks. and this is what the white house would look like if it were not painted white. and that's because it's made out of aquia sandstone. and you can go to the quarry, it's not that far from here, on aquia creek on the potomac river. the sandstone wasn't that great a stone but it was a nearby quarry stone. and it's streaked -- very heavily streaked with iron oxide and the color of the sandstone itself is kind of a sandy color with a little bit of a hint of a pinkishness to it. but when the stone gets wet, it turns into a dull gray. not particularly attractive. and because the stone is

relatively soft, when the building was being built, the workers were immediately applying whitewash to help to seal the stone so that water would not penetrate it. the white house has been white since it was first built. this is an example of the aquia stand sandstone. this is pohick church if you're familiar with that in virginia. i wanted to throw that one in because it has great graffiti that dates from 1813 to 1814. that would be the color of that stone. there's many examples of the stone throughout the washington, d.c., area. and this guy would not get out of the way when i was trying to take these pictures. but if you look very carefully, this is the entrance to the kitchen down in the basement area and you can clearly see the scorch marks. but i'd particularly like you to look at the left-hand side where the scorch marks suddenly disappear. and what that shows us is that obviously those stones, for whatever reason, were replaced over time.

exactly when that took place, i do not know. but not all of the original stones that make up the white house nor the capitol were there. many of them were damaged. and then this is just a detail of the same thing where my hand is pointing, that's what you would look if you could get a close-up of it and then just below it, right after all of that scorch you can see good, clean stone. and then this is just another example. and you can see this in many places. now, this is a quote that i took right out of don hickey's book about the myths. there's many other examples but i like this one in particular because this is a british quote, and i'll read it to you, or in part. "francis james jackson, former british minister of the united states, wrote in the spring of 1811 that his successor, augustus jay foster, would act as a sort of political conduct tore attract the lightning that may issue from the clouds round the capitol and the white house at washington."

so here's a british statement written in 1811, clearly talking about the white house. so i think we can now put to bed pretty much this myth that the white house was called the white house in 1814 because the british burned it. and then the final myth, because i'm running out of time, did the great storm put out the fires? and i have no illustrations of the great storm. surprise, surprise. but down below are some examples of some tornadoes that have hit the city of washington. one in 1927 and one in 1973. the first thing we have to make clear to everybody is that many of the accounts claim that this was a hurricane. no way. anybody that knows anything about weather knows that this was not a hurricane. this was a severe line of thunderstorms, almost certainly accompanied by tornadoes. and folks, for those of you that live here, we've experienced

this this year, this summer. we experience it many, many summers. maybe not to the level of what happened in 1814, but this was a severe line of thunderstorms that came through washington. it was not a hurricane. and this is a description of this great storm by george robert glegg, one of the junior officers in the british army. "roofs of houses were torn off by it and whirled into the air like sheets of paper whilst the rain which accompanied it resembled the rushing of a mighty cataract rather than the dropping of a shower. the darkness was as great as if the sun had long set. and the last remains of twilight had come on. occasionally relieved by flashes of vivid lightning streaming through it which together with the noise of the wind and the thunder, the crash of falling buildings and the tearing of roofs as they were stripped from the walls, produced the most appalling effect i have ever and probably ever shall witness. the storm lasted for nearly two hours without intermission."

think about this. if the lower eastern branch bridge was set on fire at around 8:20 p.m., if the washington navy yard was set on fire at about 8:30 p.m., if the capitol building was set on fire about 9:00 p.m. and the white house the treasury were set on fire about 11:00 p.m., that means that between 17 to 15 hours had passed before the great storm comes into washington at about 2:00 in the afternoon. and i want to just ask you, after burning that long, how many of these buildings would likely still have great amounts of flame? and i would argue that there was probably hardly any flame at all. there probably was still smoke. there were probably embers. might have been some minuscule amounts of flame but nothing tremendous at that point. the only places that might still have been burning with open flame at that time would be the

buildings that the british set on fire the following morning. and that would be the executive office. that would be the rope walks, more of these private structures. but the reasons they were built was because they had contracts to the navy to supply rope. those buildings might have still had fire when that great storm came through. so is it fair for people to say or to believe that the great storm came through, put out the fires, and saved the city of washington, d.c.? based upon the quote i just read you from glegg, it's very clear to me that the storm contributed to the destruction of the city, it did not help the city. it actually did additional damage. it blew down buildings. it blew the chimneys off of some of the brick buildings in washington, d.c. they were probably some of these tornadoes that were part of this great storm that came through. so i'm dashing another one of these myths.

and i'd just like to summarize, the british burned significant public buildings in washington, including the capitol, the president's house, the treasury, and the executive office. the british did not burn washington city but, in fact, showed restraint. and you've heard that from some of the other speakers up here already. the u.s. military burned more structures -- and you know i'm going to be a little more conservative now when i actually do the paper. i'm going to say maybe as many but certainly a significant number of buildings than did the british. the president's house was called the white house prior to the british burning. and the great storm was not a hurricane. it did not save the city from additional damage. in fact, it added to the destruction. so with that, i will close. i see patrick is quickly up to the mike. we'll take some questions.

go ahead. >> well, i applaud you for everything you said and i agree with everything and i'm saying that from a researcher and also a local person, but i'm from oklahoma. so when i came in, i hear all the myths. i don't know anything about the war of 1812, even the civil war, especially the american revolution having growing up and reading our history books. so i'm glad you said it was not a hurricane. it was not a hurricane. it was like del retro. like you said, a few years ago, we had coming through, terrible storm, everybody can associate with that. with the glow in the sky, looking at when you were talking about the time frame of the navy yard, the "hms meteor," one of the british bomb vessels down on the potomac river at maryland point, at 9:30 p.m. their time, and i don't know what -- you know. but 9:30 their time, they first report the glow in the night

sky. so that might help with that concept. >> that's a good point, patrick. the problem with the ships' logs is they don't record simultaneously with the events that actually take place. >> right. >> and we do know that some of the ships' logs are off by several hours from the time it was kept locally. so it makes it very difficult. we also know that some of the ships' logs are actually off by a single day where someone screwed up the dates. so all of these things enter into the complexity of trying to determine what really happened. but you make a good point. >> so my question is, when we talk about the white house -- first off, in my book "the battle of the white house" i say after the burning of washington, i don't say the british burned it. i say "after the burning" so am i okay on that? >> you're okay. >> all right, all right. with the use of the white house -- and my question is not about whether it had ever been called the white house by august

24th, 1814, but how prevalent was the use of it when ft. washington -- everybody still, even now, park service didn't stop till three or four years ago of calling it ft. warburton at the time it was burnt and it was only ft. washington after pierre la font came down and redesigned it. you don't have ft. warburton anywhere at the time -- >> actually, you do. i have some references -- >> okay. but generally speaking, it was ft. washington, even the british on their ships called it ft. washington. so my question is, how prevalent is the use of the white house? >> it's not prevalent. i only know of three instances. but it's -- the point is that it was known as the white house before. >> sure. >> and it really didn't become popularized, as you know, until much later, until the 1930s. >> okay. because the wheel white house was down on the potomac. >> all right.

okay. i think we're going to cut so we have enough time to have lunch. thank you all very much. friday night on "american history tv" in primetime we'll show you more of the speakers from the symposium on the british burning of washington, d.c. and the war of 1812. including kenneth bowling, author of "the creation of washington, d.c.: the idea and location of the american capital." pamela scott, author of "buildings of the district of columbia." william seale talks about his book "the president's house: a history." and co-authors of "madison and next, day two of a symposium marking the 200th anniversary of the burning of washington, d.c.,

during the war of 1812. first, donald hickey, author of "the war of 1812: a forgotten conflict." then, steve vogel, author of "through the perilous fight: the weeks that saved the nation." that's followed by holly shulman, at the university of virginia. and later, remarks by ralph eshelmor the national historic trail. now, from day two of the symposium on the british burning of washington, d.c., during the war of 1812. hosted by the white house historical society, the u.s. capitol historical society, and james madison's mount pillier. donald hickey talks about his book of "the war of 1812: a forgotten conflict." this is about 45 minutes. >> donald hickey is a professor

of history at wans state college in nebraska. he was called the dean of 1812 scholarship by the "new yorker," he's written seven books on the conflict. most notably, the war of 1812, a forgotten conflict, available in a bicentennial edition. his book on andrew jackson and the battle of new orleans is forthcoming from johns hopkins university press. professor hickey is editor of a fine series with monographs on the war of 1812. so it's my pleasure to welcome professor don hickey. [ applause ] >> thanks for that introduction, don. i was asked to come here to talk about the politics of the war of 1812. you should have a handout in your folder with a little outline, and a few books that

will provide additional information if you'd like to read a little bit more on this. i've called my presentation, i'm calling an act of inconceivable folly and desperation, american politics and the war of 1812. this is part of a quote from the massachusetts house of representatives in a report adopted a little more than a week after the declaration of war. and it called the declaration of war an act of inconceivable folly and desperation that was hostile to your interests, menacing to your liberties, and revolving to your feelings. this was indicative of the deep opposition to the war by the opposition party, the federalist party, which controlled the house of representatives in massachusetts. to sort of discuss this setup,

the discussion of federalist opposition to this war a little bit better, i want to talk about the origins of american political parties. the first two-party system emerged in the early 1790s, and it was really in spite of rather than because of anybody's wishes. americans at the time considered political parties political factions dysfunctional. the european records seemed to be that factions led to civil war. and so no one really favored the development of american political parties. but they emerged anyway. the initial division was over hamilton's financial program. that division widened after the french revolution went into its more radical stage in 1793, '94, '95. and i think the parties were pretty well solidified by the time the united states ratified the jade treaty with great

britain in 1795. the federalists reluctantly supported that treaty, the emerging democratic republicans were dead set against it. and those party divisions deepened still more during our undeclared naval war with france in the 1790s. that was one of the down sides. although we did pretty well with that war. that's truly our forgotten conflict. we call that the quasi war. students say, what's the quasi, i never heard of one. do they have two legs or four. anyway, in the course of the 1790s, because the federalists did control the national government, they were able to implement their policies. i would say their domestic policies essentially rested on hamilton's national program and a commitment to naval preparedness. in foreign affairs, they're usually portrayed as the

pro-british party. but i think they're more accurately described as the anti-french party. that's what drove, i think, the federalist trade here, and the hostilities of france. and they reluctantly ratified the jade treaty and later got involved in the quasi war. i think those sort of were probably anti-french as much as they were pro-british policies. in any case, the jeffersonian republicans took over. and as much as they could, they reversed those policies. paring back defense spending. they got rid of the internal taxes, and later the national bank. and they also moved away from the -- a close relationship with great britain, which it really developed during the quasi war.

when the commercial clauses of the jade treaty p expired, they asked if they would want to renew them, and the jefferson administration said absolutely not. when jefferson was compelled to send a diplomatic mission to london to try to resolve all of our outstanding differences, he refused to submit the treaty to the senate. and that was followed by a further deterioration in anglo-american relations. largely over maritime issues. the british practice of impressment, which was removing seamen from the vessels on the high seas, and then the british orders which restricted our trade with the continent of europe. and under the authority of which british seized something like 400 vessels and cargo. the republicans responded to this, first by adopting a series of trade restrictions. most notably, jefferson's

notorious embargo, which was in force for 15 months from december of 1807 to march of 1809. and then in june of 1812, by going to war against great britain. the vote on the declaration of war in june of 1812 was the closest vote on any such declaration in american history. we've had 11 declarations of war. but only five wars. the war of 1812, the mexican war, spanish-american war and two world wars. there were multiple declarations in the world wars. so only five wars. and we haven't had a declaration of war, a formal declaration of war since 1942. we just don't do it that way nowadays. congress authorizes the president to take action, and then he does, if and when he thinks it's necessary. anyway, the vote on the declaration of war in june of 1812 was 79-49 in the house of representatives. and 19-13 in the senate.

now, there was actually a closer vote in the senate on the declaration of war against spain, i think it was 45-35. you look at both houses. this is the closest vote on any declaration of war. all the others, except for the spanish-american war, were overwhelming, if not unanimous. so this represents an exception here. now, typically the declaration of war, the vote on the declaration of war is portrayed as a sectional voeth. vote. because so many northern members of congress voted against it, and so many southerners and westerners voted for it. but that really masked the, what i think is the true nature of this vote. it was a party vote. 80% of the jeffersonian republicans in congress voted for the declaration of war, and every single federalist, without exception, voted against it. so it looks to me like it's more of a party vote. now, to a large extent,

deep-seated policy issues, policy differences explain this vote. the jeffersonian republicans were convinced that we had reached a position in our history where our sovereignty was at risk. we only had three ways of responding to the british encoachments on our rights. war, more trade restrictions, or what the republicans called submission. the federalists, however, thought there was a fourth alternative, accommodation. the kind of thing they had accepted in the jade treaty, and the kind of thing that jefferson had rejected in the 1806 treaty. the treaty he had refused to submit to the senate. so there were deep-seated policy issues over how to respond to this crisis in angola-american affairs. the jeffsonian republicans concluded we needed to go to war. the federalists thought war was

unlike to achieve any concessions on the maritime issues and they were proven right on that. and we were better off simply living with these encroachments, and strikes the best deal as we could with the british to some sort of accommodation. there was also a political dimension to the declaration of war. republicans embraced the declaration of war in part because they thought it would further the interests of their party. it would unify their party, which was rent asunder by divisions. they also thought it would enhance their chances of winning the next election. there was a presidential election in 1812. and they thought it would silence their domestic opponents, not simply republicans, but also federalists. so they expected to achieve some very real political objectives with the declaration of war.

now, the federalists opposed the war primarily for policy reasons, but they, too, thought they would achieve certain political objectives. that war would not work out, and they would finally be restored to power, that they had lost in the election of 1800. but i think you have to see the vote on the declaration of war is really a vote on a matter of policy. now, once war was declared, republicans closed ranks on the larger issue of the war. there were some exceptions. the old republicans under john randolph in virginia continued to oppose the war. but most republicans now reluctantly supported the war. however, they remained divided on how best to prosecute the war. should we rely on militia, or volunteers, or regulars. should we concentrate on fighting the war on the high

seas. or in canada. should we adopt taxes, or rely heavily on a treasury note, to kind of interest-bearing paper money, and national loans. and the madison administration was really unable to overcome some of these differences. i do not consider president james madison a very strong war leader. i think he was probably one of the weakest we've ever had. the upside of that was, he didn't encroach on the civil liberties. didn't use the hammer on them. there are actually republicans, including the attorney general, who said we need a sadition act. it worked for the federalists in 1798, why don't we try one now. madison would not consider that. that was the upside of his sort of mild presidential leadership during the war. the down side was, he simply wasn't able to forge a majority in favor of his preferred means of prosecuting this war. and time and time again, he made

recommendations to congress, which congress did not accept. a federalist would combine with distant republicans particularly in the u.s. senate to vote down policies that they considered ill-advised. madison also tolerated dissent in his cabinet. disloyalty, dissent, back-biting. a lot of internal dissension there. and madison sort of ignored it. so for a variety of reasons, even though republicans closed ranks in support of the war, they frequently were divided over how best to prosecute the war, and how to pay for it. now, federalists remained pretty unified after the declaration of war. there was initially some talk among federalists in the middle and southern states about maybe supporting the war, at least remaining neutral. but for a variety of reasons, that talk didn't go anywhere.

the federalists were unhappy that france wasn't included in the declaration of war. they weren't happy with that decision. they weren't happy with the decision to force the commercial states to pay for the war, by doubling the taxes on trade without adopting any internal taxes. and they weren't happy with the decision to retain the latest trade restriction, which remained on the books, even though the restrictive system had always been presented to the american people as an alternative to the war, it wasn't dropped after war was declared. and the southern and middle states federalists were not happy with a series of vicious riots that took place in baltimore. which led to the immediate death of one federalist. and what i consider fatal, ultimately fatal internal injuries to two other federalists, including harry lee, the father of robert e.

lee. so the upshot of this was federalists in the middle and southern states who might have considered remaining neutral, lined up with their more ardent federalist friends in new england and presented a united front against the war. and you can see this in congress. a federalist voted as a block on almost all war measures. they voted against measures to raise money, to restrict trade, or to foster private jury. they did, however, support two long-term defense measures, that they thought were in the interest of the nation. those were measures to build coastal fortifications, or to expand the navy. but nevertheless, they -- on all these measures, they voted as a block. there were 305 votes in congress on war measures between june 1, 1812, when madison submitted his war message, and february 16th,

1815, when the war came to an end. and on those, federalists in the house of representatives achieved a cohesion index of -- let's see -- in the house of representatives, it was 94.4%. in the senate, it was 92.5%. so on the typical war issue, you have more than nine out of ten federalists voting on the same side. typically against the issue, although if it dealt with the navy and coastal fortifications, they voted for it. so my point here is the federalist party presented a united front against the war. first, the declaration of war, and then measures adopted by congress to prosecute the war. the notion that the opposition was limited to new england, or the federalists in the middle and southern states did not oppose the war is a myth. i think the voting patterns in congress reveal that.

now, this is not to deny that new england's opposition went further. federalists in new england felt more deeply about these issues, and also, they had the advantage of controlling state and local government there. and so that allowed them to use the machinery of state and local government to obstruct the war effort, and they also, because they were a majority, didn't have to fear retaliation. the sort of retaliation that was visited on baltimore federalists when they opposed the war in june and july of 1812. so we find federalists in new england using the machinery of government to in some minor ways obstruct the war effort. we also find that they feuded with the federal government over the deployment and command of the militia. the initial fear of new england federalists was the militia would be nationalized and march through the canadian frontier. forcing new englanders to take part in this wicked attempt to

conquer canada. and also leaving new england defenseless. so they were very reluctant to give u.s. officers command over their militia. they worked out a series of compromises in 1813, especially in 1814 when the british actually threatened the new england coast. those compromises broke down in the fall of 1814, and the u.s. government simply announced it would no longer pay the wages or supply the militia in those new england states who did not allow regular army officers to command the troops. so new englanders found themselves saddled with their own defense costs late in the war. that was one of the key things that led to the decision to summon the hartford convention. that was a regional conference that was convened in late 1814, to air new england grievances. more immediately, grievances

over the war of 1812. it is sometimes depicted as part of a scheme to pull new england out of the union. but this overstates the -- i think the secession of sentiment in new england. in new england during the war of 1812, there was talk of withdrawing from the union. there was secession sentiment. but there was no serious secessionist movement. and you can see that in the report of the hartford convention, which was issued in early january 1815. which was really quite moderate. fully half of that report was devoted to airing grievances over the war. particularly the fact that new england now had to provide for financing its own defense measures. so it was a pretty moderate document. and i don't really see even a hint of secession in that document. now, the hartford convention did

propose a series of amendments to the constitution designed to protect new england's interest in the future, and also prevent a recurrence of those policies of the republicans that the federalists thought were so utterly destructive to new england and the nation. for example, in the future, would require a two-thirds vote to embargo our tried, or to declare a war. and in fact, embargoes i think would be limited to 60 days. admitting new states from the union from the west would require a two-thirds vote in congress also. the whole point of the amendments was to protect new england's position in the union and also a recurrence of the most destructive of the republican policies. nothing came of those amendments. the war ended shortly thereafter. and in fact the hartford convention was used thereafter by republicans as a club to pound their federalist foes at election time in the post-war elections. the republicans after the war

was over, what happened here in washington was the low point for americans in the war. but fortunately, for the american memory of the war, it was followed first by the successful defense of ft. mchenry. and almost simultaneously, the victory on lake champlain, which forced the british to pull a large army out of upper new york, and then, of course, in january of 1815, by jackson's lopsided victory over the british at new orleans, we actually were fighting veterans of the napoleonic war. i think that was the only battle where that happened. and that allowed americans afterwards to say, we have single-handedly defeated the conqueror of napoleon and the mistress of the seas. and they talked about how repeatedly, how we defeated wellington's invincible, or the conquerors of the conquerors of europe.

it has a nice ring. the british beat the french, and we beat the british. it didn't have any impact on the outcome of the war or the peace treaty. but it really did help in a profound and lasting way, shaping the american memory of the war. so in the wake of that, republicans claimed all the victories in the war, and blamed all the failures and all the and it worked pretty effectively. federalist party pretty quickly disappeared after the war of 1812. i think they ran their last candidate for the presidency in 1816. and he got swamped. this was a party that was out of tune with the ethos of the american people. it was too aristocratic, too hostile, too territorial to survive in this era anyway.

the federalist party was in decline since 1800. what revived it was the restrictive system, most notably the embargo and war of 1812. you look at how federalists did during the war of 1812 at election time, they actually did pretty well. the number of states they controlled in the course of the war increased out of 18 from three to seven. and there was an uptick in their support, in their numbers in congress. not a big increase, but a 5% or 10% in the increase of number of federalists who sat in the house or the senate. so one can argue that opposing the war of 1812 worked to the interests of the federalists during the war, but most assuredly it did not after the war was over. it was just too easy to portray them as disloyal, as torreys, the really bad thing you could call someone in those days, or traitors. and so the party quickly disappeared.

now, by way of conclusion, i want to make two broad points about this period and about federalists opposition of the war of 1812. you look at the early national period, and party differences were deep and bitter. and i think they were deepest during the quasi war in the late 1790s, and during the period of the restrictist system and the war to 1815. these differences could not be bridged by some bipartisan compromise. and i think it's important that we understand that. these were deep-seeded policy issues that could not be bridged. and it looks to me like there are other periods in our history. the 1815s, on the eve of the civil war, the 1890s, when we saw the rise of populism. the 1960s, when we were divided over a host of fundamentalists, most notably the war in vietnam.

and today. and i think the policy differences in these periods are so deep seeded, they cannot be bridged by bipartisan. so my advice to those who call for bipartisanship today is, don't be surprised if you don't get it. now, how do we resolve these matters? well, typically the civil war i guess was an exception, but typically we resolve these differences by leaving matters up to voters. the voters basically have to decide which side do you support. and then ultimately these things are worked out. at least that's the way it should work, and normally does work in a democracy. as a final concluding point i want to make is about opposition to the war of 1812. this was, in my judgment, the most vigorous party opposition to any war in our history.

and i would, therefore, put it at one end of the spectrum if i was looking at all of our wars. at the other end of the spectrum, we have world war ii. when there was no serious party opposition. in fact, very little opposition at all. that's at the other end of the spectrum. when most americans rallied around the flag. now, we may find it comforting to think that the american norm is world war ii, but it ain't so. most wars are a lot closer to the war of 1812, than they are to world war ii. there was significant opposition, domestic opposition to the american revolution, the qua sai war, the mexican war, the civil war, the war in vietnam, and just about every other war we have fought since vietnam. and there was some opposition to the spanish-american war, to world war i, and to the korean war.

so it looks to me like the exception in our history is in the war in vietnam -- or isn't the war of 1812, or the war in vietnam, the exception is world war ii. and my take is that this is simply the price we pay for democracy. that if we're going to go to war, we should expect opposition, and if that war drags out, that opposition will only increase. and that, my friends, is the price we pay for being a democratic republic. okay. thank you. i think we have q&a now. [ applause ] >> now, this is my opportunity to learn from you. i always like the q&a part of any public presentation, because you guys get to tell me where i got it wrong.

and i can learn from you. yes, sir? >> the fall of the federalist party is the only other example of the demise of a party on the eve of the civil war. and one theory is that jefferson's inconsistent on incorporating into the federalist system those that had anti-federalist feeling and giving it expression within the context of federalists. would you agree with that or not? >> generally. the point that this gentleman is making is that the only two major parties that really disappeared from american history, and i don't think that's quite right. let's say it is. the federalist party and wig party, it is because the dominant party basically co-oped some of their basic issues. my take on it is that political parties come into being and enjoy popularity, because they

offer something of fundamental importance to the american voter. a classic example is the republican party of the 1850s. they got ahold of the issue of anti-slavery, and boy, that resonated with people, at least in the north of the united states. and they were the dominant party, roughly from 1860 to 1932. but what happened it seems to me is a political party comes into power, offering a program that is very attractive to the american people, but that program is then enacted into law, and as the years pass, that party finds itself on the wrong end of a big issue. now, for the federalists in the 1790s, they were charged with launching the new government under the constitution, they did a great job of that. but by the late 1790s, their program was in place. at least most of it. and they had outlived their yutfulness. they were on the wrong side of the big issues, rise of democracy, territorial

expansion, and our position in the great european war. and i think the same thing happened to the jeffersonian republicans. they were at the cutting edge of the early 19th century. it seems to me that's the pattern i see in american history, of the rise and fall of political parties. okay? what else? yes, sir? >> did the federalists early in the debate over war with england have a coherent alternative strategy for dealing with the violation of american trade, neutrality for indian attacks on the settlers, moving into ohio, in indiana? did they have a clear alternative to war with great britain, and did they press that throughout the war? >> did the federalists have a clear alternative of war? they did. and i don't get this. you look at the literature on the run-up to the war, and a lot

of historians say the federalists had no alternative. well, i got a hot flash for those guys. their alternative was no war. peace. okay? that's a viable alternative, not going to war. now, did they have an alternative for forcing the british to give up our encroachment -- their encroachment on our rights? no, they did not. but their argument, and i think it was sound, was these encroachments were tied to the war in europe. the british had no fundamental interest in encroaching on our rights. they were trying to win a war in europe. and if they encroach on our rights, it's because they felt that those policies were necessary to winning that much greater war in europe. they were actually surprised, and a little hurt that we went to war over these issues. because they felt they were fighting the war for western civilization.

and we were doing quite well. the federalists are thinking, we're making money and these encroachments aren't going to last forever. they're the price we pay for profiting by trading in a war-torn world. and those encroachments on our rights will end when the war in europe ends. and there's nothing we can do to force the british to give up those encroachments. and i think the treaty of gent indicated that view. the maritime issues that caused the war, the impressment especially, violations of our territorial waters, abuses of naval blockades, definition of contraband, those issues were not mentioned in the treaty of gent. now, the argument sometimes given is, well, that's because the issues went away with the end of the war in europe. that's true. and i think that was the federalist argument. but there was nothing in the treaty of gent that would have

prevented the british from resorting to those policies again if the war in europe resumed. it did not, and so they did not. although, some of those same issues surfaced again in world war i. this guy named earnest may who has written a book on the neutrality period 1914 to 1917, he talks about the tension between the united states and great britain. and that chapter is entitled, i think the shadow of 1812. so that was a federalist alternative. look, we've just got to live with these encoachments on our rights. we're doing okay. this is the nature of what second rate powers have to do in a war-torn world. a great powers, if they're locked in a titanic struggle, a life-and-death struggle, they will not make concessions to second-rate powers if they think it will undermine their war effort. they're just not going to do it. no more than than in world war ii if brazil had come to the

united states and said, hey, we want to trade with germany, is that okay with you? we'll want to say, gee, we don't want to upset brazil, they might go to war against us, so have it. i think the problem here is, jeffersonian republicans did not fully understand that we were a second rate power. there's a great quote from a federalist at the beginning of the war, in which he talks about how we have considered ourselves of too great a weight in the scale of nations. and assume that we had -- we could control things that really were beyond our control. all right. somewhat long-winded response to 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