Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  September 5, 2014 4:00am-6:01am EDT

4:00 am
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
4:01 am
the shoals. and some more ships would sail up the bay under captain peter parker to disrupt communications and further confuse the americans. and he's able -- he's able to persuade ross and admiral cochrane to go along with this. ross, he takes them ashore, in st. mary's county and ross sees how poor the defenses are. and ross is, you know, an aggressive commander himself. he certainly has proven himself in the european wars, and he's eager to get home. he's got a wife who is not at all happy he's been sent across the ocean to fight in this new war. so what they agree to is they don't commit to an attack on washington, but they agree that they'll land the forces at benedict, and go try to trap barney and based on the resistance they meet, they can make a decision as to whether or not to continue on to washington. cockburn's plans are zealously endorsed by one of ross' officers. this is lieutenant george de lacy evans. this picture was taken much later, during the crimean war,
4:02 am
where he commanded a division. i love this photo because it kind of shows you -- we don't see too many photos of participants in this war. and this gives you an idea of what the american militia was up against, you know. a very serious, tough minded soldier was evans, and he is at ross' side and he's certainly encouraging the general to do this attack. quick aside, when i was doing research for this book, i flew to london, to look at the archives there, the day i arrived, i was staying at the flat of my former high school roommate and said, let's go look for cockburn's grave, it is in pencil green cemetery. we were wandering around in the cold and fog. and instead of finding cockburn's grave, we did find george de lacy evans and he's a stone's throw from cockburn. i just found this remarkable, that two of the figures most responsible for this attack on
4:03 am
washington are within a stone's throw of each other. i was amazed. i don't know about my friend, but i couldn't get over it. he wanted to get back to watch some soccer. but so the landing takes place on august 19th, and it works beautifully, just as cockburn has said it will. the americans are completely flumoxed. they can't figure out what's going on. they do trap the flotilla, august 22nd. barney blows it up rather than have the boats fall into british hands. he escapes with his flotilla men. but by this point there has been so little resistance offered ross that he is persuaded that it is worth continuing on to washington. and in washington there is some hope that, well, now the british are going to turn back. they have finished off barney's
4:04 am
flotilla, they have done their business and they're going to go sail away. this is an example of wishful thinking we see in the defense of washington. there is several more brilliant faints as they move to upper marlboro, and it becomes more apparent that washington is going to be a target. even then, general winder, the american commander who is getting no support from the secretary of war john armstrong is very confused as to where he should position his forces. in retrospect, it should have been quite obvious they were going to have to come through bladensburg to get to washington because in order to cross the eastern branch of the potomac, as it was then known, they were going to -- they would have to cross that river and it was going to be too difficult down here where the river is quite wide.
4:05 am
and the river -- one can anticipate the bridges would be blown. but at bladensburg, the water was shallow enough that they could forge if the river there was blown. after a final faint, and very belated realization by the americans that bladensburg was the site, on august 24th, there is a battle at bladensburg. speaking of marines, this shows some of the marines fighting at bladensburg. a couple of points, i don't want to talk too much, but we always talk about the bladensburg races and how the militia just scattered and the british cut through them. all that is true to a point. i think the first place we have to remember that the militia that shows up, these are civilians who have not been well trained. not well equipped, very poorly led by winder and very poorly supported by armstrong, the federal government. and yet they showed up.
4:06 am
they -- these are citizen soldiers showing up to fight a very formidable force, maybe not in numbers, but certainly in terms of experience. and had they been better led or had they been used earlier to show any resistance, i think ross would have turned around. and there is also very strong showing by the marines, who are serving as infantry to barney and his flotilla men who form a third line of defense. after the first two lines of maryland militia are scattered, the british have to charge uphill into barney's guns and there is some very heavy fighting, and i would say that this battle was not -- was not a done deal that barney comes close to turning it around. runs out of ammunition. and the british proved to be too much. he's desperately wounded.
4:07 am
the british after a few hours of fighting then are left with an open road into washington. winder retreats all the way through town to georgetown and decides that's not far enough. he goes to tenley town where the heights there. you see the burning starting to begin. he decides he's too close. he goes all the way to the montgomery courthouse. that was not his finest moment. we can see the path that madison would take. and i think we'll hear more about that later today. i won't go into much detail about that either. the british, once they enter town, i think it is quite clear that ross had come to the conclusion, even as their entering town, that the federal buildings in washington would be burned. if they couldn't receive a
4:08 am
healthy ransom for it. and, in fact, after one incident at the belmont home where they come under sniper fire, they get to work and the capital is soon in flames, the americans themselves burn the washington navy yard, which is just stocked full of timber and tar and all sorts of naval supplies. and this is really what makes some of the largest fires. and you have -- we're speaking earlier of conflagrations. this is what you see, the sight of the navy yard burning from very far away and the sheets of flame winding up from the capital can be -- are visible as far away as fredericksburg, frederick, maryland, and ominously in baltimore they can see the glow in the sky. this was an enormous fire that was burning in washington and then soon the white house itself
4:09 am
goes up in flames. we saw this portrait yesterday and you can see that cockburn doesn't feel a huge measure of regret here. ross had come to share cockburn's view that the burning of washington could be a way of forcing an end to the war. so in the report that he sends to london, very soon after this, ross calls the destruction of washington's building, quote, the opposite of the expedition and makes no mention of retaliation. but instead describes it as a humiliation for the americans that would soon end the war. he wants -- he believes it is going to get the u.s. government's attention and they'll be forced to make peace. he writes, quote, they feel strongly the disgrace of having had their capital taken by a handful of men and blame very
4:10 am
generally a government which went to war without the means or the abilities to carry it on. the injury sustained by the city of washington in the destruction of the public buildings has been immense and must discuss the country with a government that has left them capital unprotected. nonetheless, i think it is fair to say that ross likely would not have consented to burning the federal buildings in washington, had he not thought it justified in response to what the american actions in canada. this isn't what drives him to burn it, but he does feel that they do have some justification here. it is not york that is the justification that is on british minds, it is really newark, which i mentioned earlier, and similar episode at dover on the north shores of lake erie that were really on british minds. now, one point i wanted to make about this moment is that the
4:11 am
news quickly arrives within three weeks in great britain that, you know, the capital has been capture and the building is burned and there is great joy in london, celebrations at hyde park, guns being fired, and a real belief that the war is going to end very quickly and that great britain after two decades is finally going to be able to have a time of peace. but in the weeks that ensue, there is some criticism that surfaces in the european press that notes that napoleon conquered europe without burning the capitals of europe and how come the british weren't able to do the same.
4:12 am
and the french particularly liked this line of argument and one of the french papers actually writes that this action in washington is, quote, unworthy of civilized nations. and it is only then that by november, when there is -- the issue is brought up in parliament, that you hear any mention of york. don graves, a great canadian scholar on the war of 1812 has pointed out that the first mention in parliament of york comes november 8th. so this -- york becomes a justification after the fact for the british actions. and it soon is pretty well accepted and 200 years later, we see some of the results of that. now, three weeks after the attack on washington, the british launch an attack on baltimore and this -- this is an attack that had the british launched immediately after washington, had they gone directly over land as in fact
4:13 am
ross considers the outcome could have been very different. but in the three weeks since washington, the militia commander in baltimore, the baltimoreans had the sense to more or less stage a coup and not let winder take over as he should have, and major general samuel smith is in charge. and unlike winder, he has a scheme of defense and, you know, a real tactical sense and by building a large force of some 15,000 militia that have descended on baltimore from virginia, western maryland, from pennsylvania, and then putting his best men from baltimore city brigade out at a thin point on north point where the british are advancing by land, he's able to in fact delay the british
4:14 am
attack and in fact kill general ross in the skirmish that proceeds that battle. and then you have following up on that the attack on ft. mchenry, which, of course, is what francis scott key accompanied by john skinner and some other americans witness and we won't go into that story. safe to say that i think it is always important to remember that there is a question mark at the end of that first verse that key writes. when he's witnessing this attack, he's not just wondering whether the flag is going to be flying over the ft. mchenry, he's wondering whether the united states is going to survive, you know, three weeks after the destruction of federal washington, it certainly seemed possible that the country was on the brink of collapse. and baltimore and also as don mentioned, lake champlain and
4:15 am
more important victory that turns back to the british attack from quebec really, when this news arrives in london, this changes the atmosphere quite a bit. so after the heady rush from washington's collapse, reality begins setting in. it is worth noting that at gent, on august 24th, the very day that washington is burned, the american delegation was meeting with british commissioners and they were rejecting demands that the british just made, which included creating a 250,000 square mile buffer zone for native americans in the old northwest. would have given great britain military control of the great lakes and navigation down the mississippi. so by the time that the news from baltimore and lake champlain arrives and there is a real realization certainly encouraged by welling ton who is asked for his opinion on the matter and he tells liverpool
4:16 am
that you don't really have much of a basis to be making extreme demands here. he advises making peace. this is what happens at the treaty that is signed december 24th. i think it is worth noting that, you know, i think ross and cockburn came pretty close, really, to realizing their vision. the -- in the end, the capture of washington doesn't really give the british the advantage they hope and they find themselves later on the defensive because of criticism and then you have the results
4:17 am
from baltimore and lake champlain, but if washington had been followed up by different results in baltimore, and lake champlain, i think the outcome could have been quite different and the burning of washington, the federal buildings, would be seen in a different light today. but anyway, with that, i want to stop and take questions. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> i think we would all love to hear that paragraph in your book, that wonderful paragraph about libraries and ladies. okay. >> right. >> secondly, i have a second question, which -- i'm going to sit down. before i can give up the retaliation story, i need a little more clarification. you say it was after -- it was an after the fact justification. and in your talk today, you said that the british chesapeake campaign was retaliation for the american campaign in canada, not specifically york.
4:18 am
but in general. but don't you say in your book, that robert ross, in washington, said it was retaliation for york or am i wrong? >> you're right on that. and in the sense that this is something that is written by dr. yule many years later by an american witness in an account that while very useful has some, you know, leaves some doubts as to the details of certain incidents and recollections of what was said, so this is the only reference to york, only reference to york attributed to ross. and it is not ross himself in his own words and the letters he writes home, he doesn't say anything about york. he doesn't say anything about newark or delaware or anywhere else. he talks about humiliating the americans.
4:19 am
i think you also mention the not making war against libraries and ladies, i think in -- that comes from the same account. and i think there is a germ of truth in all of this. i think ross felt quite embarrassed when he learns that the books of library of congress were actually in the capital building. and he -- he allegedly says, had i known that, we would have taken the books out. and ross, i think, felt a bit uncomfortable about the whole thing of burning these buildings. he had come to the conclusion, though, it was the best way to end this war quickly. and, you know, to the extent that retaliation is motivating him, i really think if he said anything at the time, almost certainly would have been about newark, because this was the issue that had been raised with cochrane. this was the issue that was really -- had really infuriated the british. so i think that -- and the ladies too.
4:20 am
i think he was certainly -- i think the idea they wanted to capture dolly madison is pretty ridiculous, the british were interested in capturing james madison. [ inaudible ] >> and maybe he wouldn't have. i think it is possible. or at least he would have made sure she left. yes, sir. >> earlier mrs. taylor asked don hickey to discuss some of the personalities. could you comment on dewitt clinton and daniel tompkins who were both governor of new york state. and also the landing of money by tompkins to fund new york state's role in the war of 1812, which when he died, he was very -- he was broke. and tompkins went on to serve as monroe's vice president for
4:21 am
eight years. could you comment on the role of dewitt clinton and daniel tompkins. >> i probably couldn't say more than what you have. certainly not an area of expertise for me. but what i would say is that the -- at this time there is sort of a movement towards secession that has been going on in new england. and i think the -- the burning of washington is one of the things that pulls the rug out from that movement because there is quite a bit of outrage that spreads, including up to new england and to new york over the burning of washington. i don't know if anybody else has something to add about it, but -- >> are there any other personalities you want to discuss that had a role in the
4:22 am
war of 1812? >> oh, sure, i mean -- you know, i'm always fascinated actually by the role of francis scott key because to me he epitomizes the divisions in the country at this time. francis scott key, who we see as, you know, the guy who writes the most patriotic of all songs, was a huge opponent of the war. he in particular is appalled at the u.s. actions towards canada, the fact that we're attacking canada, which he views as an innocent third party, and he actually writes a letter to john randolph of virginia, who was the congressman leading the anti-war efforts that key celebrates when one of the u.s. attacks on montreal fails. and he says that to quote patrick henry, if this be
4:23 am
treason, i am brace the name traitor. he's a fascinating figure. monroe himself, i think, you know, he really botches things in this story. he jumps on a horse to go scouting out the british as they're approaching. this is the secretary of state, putting himself in danger's way and he very nearly gets caught by the british down in nottingham. and he also forgets to bring along a spyglass, by the way. so his scouting reports aren't particularly useful. and then at bladensburg, he inserts himself in the chain of command and moves some of the forces around, so that they're not in support of each other. fascinating story, but he and madison, i think, really redeem themselves after the british depart washington. they -- madison spends the last
4:24 am
night in refuge in brookville, maryland, and gets the word that the british have withdrawn after 24 hours. and he and monroe immediately ride back to washington. this is a moment when a lot of people were urging complete capitulation, still has that second british force coming up the potomac river. and just as madison enters washington, there is a big boom coming from down the river. and that's where the british are starting to attack ft. washington, which soon blows itself up, so you have a continued assault on the capital, and at this point, madison and monroe, i think, show their finest moments in their roles and monroe effectively takes over defense of the city. and becomes more or less the acting secretary of war. and one of the good things they have the sense to do is to
4:25 am
keep -- not interfere with the defenses of baltimore. and they keep winder out of -- from being inserted back in control there. and i think monroe's actions also in trying to trap the british forces, they're leaving alexandria were noteworthy. so, yeah, a lot of characters that we haven't been able to speak about that i think deserve more mention. >> could you elaborate a little bit more about the conduct of cockburn and ross in regard to barney as the battle ended. i think that is sort of an interesting story, and i wanted to hear how you felt about it. >> it is very interesting. because when barney is wounded, and he falls into british hands very quickly, a soldier goes to get first its captain wainwright, one of the british naval ship captains and then cockburn arrives as well and ross. and, you know, they are very impressed by the performance of
4:26 am
barney and the flotilla men. in fact, ross himself had to take command after colonel william thorton, one of the british brigade commanders led the way had fallen. and they had -- i think they recognized they were on the cusp of maybe losing this battle because barney had initially been able to drive the british back. he actually even, you know, orders a charge at one point that really throws the british off guard. so they do immediately upon finding him, ross says, well, we're going to issue you a parole, which essentially means that he's not going to be held captive. he can't fight in the war further until he's officially exchanged. but it is a gesture of honor, of respect for barney. and i also would add that as alluded to earlier, the marines were fighting with barney and they fought very well, they suffered 25% casualties, but that's not why the british left the marine commandant's home. you -- it comes down to evans
4:27 am
writes in a memo that, well, we were going to burn that house, but the neighbors pleaded that it was going to -- it would spread to other homes, the area around the navy yard and marine barracks was very heavily populated at the time. there is a big wind blowing. so they may have respected the marines, but that's not why they saved that building. >> you think that part of the battle was overlooked pretty much by history. it seems like it hasn't been mentioned at all. >> which part? >> barney's -- >> i don't know if it has been overlooked. i think there is -- there is a general recognition that, you know, barney was a real hero. there was a great event in bladensburg, just two weeks ago, ten days ago, where a memorial sculpture to barney and to -- includes a marine and a flotillaman was unveiled.
4:28 am
and i think that's a -- was a fitting gesture. so i think, you know, at least among people who paid some attention to this fight, there is a recognition that barney and the flotilla men really were a high point in what was otherwise a pretty dismal day. yes, ma'am. >> i'll stand up. i object to the idea that washington was burned because of what americans did in york. and canada. and so i spent a good deal of time researching what did happen in york, now toronto. the americans, yes, i think did burn the parliament building. but it wasn't american troops. it was american settlers who were fed up with being british
4:29 am
subjects, when they were used to being citizens. and they were just plain fed up with the british administration and with the local administration and so one way they had been fighting in parliament, actually, against certain laws that the governor was trying to pass, that they thought were oppressive. and so i think that when the americans attack that the local settlers just said to themselves, okay, here, we'll get even. and they burned the parliament buildings. if anybody did, it might have been the people that were released from the jail, they were jail birds, then they might have been in there because the british jailed traitors. and so they may have had a good
4:30 am
reason to burn the parliament buildings. but so they may have joined some of the american settlers and burned the parliament buildings, but it wasn't the american troops. >> well, there is still a great bit of mystery and uncertainty about exactly what happened. nobody can say with certainty who burned the parliament, certainly americans of some sort, more than likely deserved some of the responsibility. but, again, this was not something that was sanctioned by the american government. any other questions? >> yes -- the york issue. i do agree with you. your book was great and i encourage anyone to read it, everyone to read it, i should say. the point that i find fascinating with york is that
4:31 am
the u.s. navy has some items, still has some items that were taken from the parliament at york. they're at the naval academy museum. the guilded lion, at one time, they had the parliamentary mace which was returned by franklin roosevelt to canada sometime in the '30s and then there is some standards that were taken from there. which suggests that there was some official involvement or else they took them away from the guys who burnt it. there also was a wig or they said it was a scalp initially, but it turns out it was the speaker's perry wig. it was not a human scalp, it was the -- so, any reaction?
4:32 am
>> well, yeah, there is a lot of items that if the rightful owners knew were being held by the u.s. government, either at the naval academy or other places, probably will be mobs demanding their return. i don't know the provenance of those items. but i wouldn't be surprised at all if some items were taken as souvenirs by the troops who had fought there at york, if they were brought back by the troops and ended up somehow at places like the naval academy. it wouldn't surprise me at all. >> anybody else? yes, ma'am. >> general ross issued an order that there would be no burning of private buildings, yet admiral cockburn burned the natural intelligencer office. i was wondering because you said that cockburn was interested in laying waste to the -- why that didn't happen to the rest of washington? >> ross was certainly in charge of the forces going into washington, so i think cockburn was chomping at the bit at times, there were several buildings he wanted to burn. now, including a bank building. now, he was going to burn the national intelligencer and was
4:33 am
getting ready to do that, when, again, these neighbors that keep on showing up at different points appeal to him saying if you like that, that building on fire, the fire is going to spread. it is going to ignite other buildings. and this is actually -- this actually happens on several occasions, the fires from the capital, for example, are responsible for igniting the -- that home that george washington had once owned that was basically collateral damage from the capital fire. so cockburn doesn't actually burn that building, but cockburn, you know, ross keeps cockburn largely in check, but there was no way that cockburn was going to be denied the pleasure of doing something to the national intelligencer, which, you know, had compared him to attila the hundred and many other barbarians.
4:34 am
and, i think the americans were quite lucky that ross was in charge of that attack. in fact, you know, he's nearly shot at the belmont home at the start of the british arrival in washington. and some of the british troops told civilians that, you know, if ross had been killed, you know, this town would have been absolutely decimated. and i don't really doubt that. okay, well, thank you very much. >> we have a brief ten-minute break. here are some highlights for this coming weekend. nebraska supreme court will hear oral argument on the keystone xl pipeline. former fcc commissioners with campaign 2014 gearing up, watch the latest debates on c-span sunday at noon, kay haggan and tom tillis.
4:35 am
jerry brown and republican nominee neil kashkari. john yoo shares his opinion on international law and what effect it has on the behavior of powerful nations. mike gonzalez on how he thinks republicans can make gains for the hispanic vote. sunday at noon, our three hour conversation and your phone calls with the former chair of the commission on civil rights. friday night at 8:00 eastern. authors and historians talking about the burning of washington during the war of 1812. sunday night at 8:00, the anniversary of president gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching, call us at 202-626-3400. or you canou can e-mail us at cs
4:36 am
at c-span.org, join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. also speaking at the symposium of the british burning of washington, d.c., during the war of 1812, homilly schulman director of the dolly madison project. this is about 45 minutes. >> our next speaker will be talking about dolly madison and the british invasion of washington, d.c., in the war of 1812. we already heard some things about dolly madison's role in the war of 1812. now we'll hear more from holly schulman, who is a director of the todd madison papers.
4:37 am
it was publicered by the university of virginia press in 2004. dr. schulman has continued to publish dolly documents as the dolly madison digital edition for which she currently has grants for both the national historic preservation and records commission of the national archives and from the national endowment for the amenities. please welcome holly schulman. [ applause ] >> those of you who are interested in the full papers of dolly payne todd madison, what i do now is as complete as possible edition of the dolly madison papers in the dolly madison digital edition. like the book, it's published by the university press. unlike the book is published by
4:38 am
their electronic imprint, the name which is rotunda. if you go and you take a look at it, i hope you enjoy it. do you want me to do -- oh, okay. having said that, i want to thank, of course, as everyone speaking as thanked, the three organization that is have sponsored this and thank them for putting on a conference which is so beautifully focused so the papers can talk to each other in a way that doesn't happen at conferences. i would like to thank kathryn al gore who is over there for introducing a more general view
4:39 am
of dolly madison. what i'm going to do today is talk about dolly, not the burning of the white house, but her saving of the portrait of george washington. that really is the topic of my -- it's narrow, but the question then is, what could we learn from it. there was a famous biologist at harvard who once gave an image of looking, from a distance, at a fence, which had a knot hole in it. if you looked at this knot hole from a distance, it was a small part of the fence. if you put your eye to the knot hole, you could see the world. and yes, he studied eyes. in any case, let me begin here. two stories about the war of 1812 are lodged in our collective memory. they remained in the present. they are told in books, in textbooks and in popular culture.
4:40 am
one captures american victory over the british during the war. the other symbolizes american resistance. the first, a military success is about andrew jackson, who defeated the british in new orleans in january of 1815. the second is an act of defiance. that one is about dolly madison, who on august 24, 1814 saved the portrait of george washington from british. jackson embodies american american nation. dolly is audacity mixed with resolution and em bodies the weak, but pure, an unarmed woman, against the strong but foul, the enemy army. they did route the enemy, although it was an empty --
4:41 am
lives were lost in vain. in fact, we do not know whether or not dolley madison saved the portrait of george washington. no letters written either by dolley or james on august 24th have survived. there's very little from august 23rd. in other words, the documentary evidence for that day is either circumstantial or post factum. what dolley did when the british invaded washington remains a bit uncertain, into a vacuum of information, dolley imposed her own story. to understand the story of dolley and the burning of the white house, we need to explore what we know happened and how and why she shaped her own legend. let us start with what we know
4:42 am
from dolley's personal and collateral correspondence. james madison was off with the general and wrote her more than once on august 23rd, but only one letter survived. in it, the president stated that he had heard encouraging news about the enemy troops. but the information was not reliable. he hoped she might see him by the evening, which, of course, did not happen. equally, dolley could not have known that at the time. the next day, august 24th, we have a letter from eleanor young jones. she was the wife of the secretary of the navy, william jones. she wrote excusing herself from their dinner engagement that day at the president's house. jones admitted her fears in the, quote, present state of alarm,
4:43 am
but following social protocol, menned she imagined, quote, it will be mutually convenient to dispense with the enjoyment of your hospitality today and therefore pray you to admit this as an excuse. it's probably the only thing we know about that dinner. she was waiting to hear from dolley's sister, anna payne cuts. anna payne cuts was also in washington. she wrote a quick message. it was undated but probably also composed on august 24th and her tone was frantic. quote, tell me, for god's sake where you are and what you are going to do, she dispaired. quote, we could hear nothing but what is horrible here. i know not who to send this to and will say but little.
4:44 am
soon afterwards, william jones, who we can identify here as the husband of eleanor young jones, also secretary of the navy, wrote an undated short memo outlining his actions on the 24th, presumably quite close to events. he penned this quite close to the events. he said he had left the navy yard about 3:30 in the afternoon, which is to say about a half hour after he had initially been due for dinner, with supreme court associate justice gabriel duvall and soon learned that quote, our army was rapidly retreating and that of the enemy advancing rapidly. he and duvall went to georgetown and picked up the jones and carol families as well as dolley, her sister anna, and anna's husband, richard cuts.
4:45 am
jones then received word from james madison to go to the works west of georgetown. so, quote, at about 5:00, i set out in the company of the family of the president, of mr. carol, and of my own with mr. duvall, and proceeded through georgetown to join the president but found that madison had crossed at mason' ferry. by august 29th, newspapers printed an extract of a letter. we are now one step further from, if you will, authenticity. that is to say, its extract rart than whole, and it's printed in a newspaper, so what has happened between its writing and printing we don't exactly know. an extract of a letter to a gentleman in this town stating
4:46 am
jacob barker, a wealthy supporter of president madison had handed dolley into a kaerj in the moments before the british arrived. the president had asked barker to remove the portrait of george washington along with a silver plate from the house. there are two additional 1814 letters of dolley's from that fall. both are addressed to women friends. in the fall, undated, dolley sent minerva rogers a quote, pure wine saved from the president's house the morning of its destruction. rumors had spread after the invasion that the soldiers had drunk all the wine and that none was left. this leaves us to wonder whether dolley was giving out bottles of salvaged wine to make the point the rumors were only that,
4:47 am
rumors, and that the president and his household were braving the circumstances and doing well. perhaps it was simply a gesture of warm regard to a woman friend. regardless, the president's wine, like the government and the country, had survived. on december 3rd, 1814, dolley wrote mary elizabeth hazel, wife of the architect benjamin henry latrobe and the daughter of a philadelphia merchant. the two men -- the two women had been friends from the 1780s and the 1790s when dolley lived in philadelphia and mary elizabeth had very much been a partner in decorating the president's mansion although like mrs. eames, a couple 150 years later, she was left out of the written picture.
4:48 am
dolley told her friends she, dolley, stayed in the president's mansion until just two hours before the british reached the capitol. quote, on that very day, i sent out the silver and in parenthesis, nearly all, and velvet curtains and general washington's picture, the cabinet papers, a few books, and a small clock. everything else belonging to the public are own valuable stores of every description, a part of my clothes, and all of my servants' clothes, et cetera, et cetera, in short, it would fatigue you to read the list of my losses or an account of the general dismay or particular distresses of your acquaintance. this letter simply enumerated what dolley had saved, lost, and how she felt about it.
4:49 am
the tone is one of loss, not self kin gratulations for her bravery or courage. sheer articulated her rage at the british and her feelings of inadquency in the face of the army but accepted the fact she had to flee. i think, and we could come back to this later. this is probably the best piece of evidence there is that dolley in fact had a hand in saving george washington's portrait. however, also, you note, a letter that is never or rarely quoted. that's what we have. a complete documentary evidence of dolley madison and what she did on august 23rd and 24th. the contemporary documentary evidence, how she fled, what she rescued and there are not many details. madison was out of town, she held down the domestic front. she described herself as a woman without fear. the city was terrified.
4:50 am
her sister, anna, was flying around in dread and in the face of enemy fire, she canceled her dinner party, saved what she could of national importance, including the famous portrait of george washington, then left town in the company of her sister, friend and other members of a party made up at least of cuts, carol, jones and duvall. her mood was surprisingly composed as she told ludroatrla was so unfeminine as to be free from fear. in the hub bub of the moment, few of the documents talk about the saving of the portrait of george washington. this, however, was the moment she most wanted remembered. it's what she most wanted remembered about her years as a
4:51 am
president's wife. indeed, the years that she reigned over washington. it was not dolley madison as a hostess or a conciliator of political factions or as the arbiter of fashion. it was dolley madison as the hero heroine of the war of 1812. in 1834, we have now skipped 20 years. in 1834, she finally got her chance to present her interpretation of events. the occasion for this was that she received a request from margaret baird smith, the wife of the editor of the national intelligencer and also writer and novelest, to supply smith with material for a bigragical
4:52 am
sketch of mrs. madison for the third volume of the portrait gallery of distinguished americans. dolley seems to be ambivalent. she sent smith little about her origins and of that, some was intentionally incorrect. she was concerned about her privacy and that of her husband and she instructed her niece, mary cuts, not to give smith, quote, anything of importance in my own eyes. dolley stalled, leaving smith (z largely to write from her own memory. but in one particular matter, dolley mailed margaret smith a letter. the letter she told smith she sent her sister lucy in august of 1814. it was clearly important. quote, if you have lost or omitted to give it to her, it will be much to my injury, she instructed her nieces.
4:53 am
so they passed on dolley's document. what exactly her nieces handed smith is controversial. dolley only sent a copy of an alleged original, not the original document itself. she told smith she didn't have it. lucy did. she told her niece, mary cuts, that mice had eaten it. moreover, the letter is and someone yesterday alluded to it, talking about this in an article for the white house history. the letter that dolley sent to margaret smith is surprisingly unhurried for something written in such tense circumstances and oddly purposive and formal. the letter of august 14 is about courage and bravery and her determination to prevail against
4:54 am
the enemy and champion american independence. and it worked. to this day, when americans were recalling dolley madison, they thank her for saving the portrait of george washington, emblem of america. they imagine her standing up to the enemy. their picture is of a woman who might be placing a flag in front of the troops, victorious in her goal. in this letter given to margaret baird smith, dolley madison stamped her own image. the question of who, exactly, saved the washington portrait and how they did so, however, became a matter of controversy in the 1840s. now we have skipped even later. by this time, of course, james madison is dead. dolley does not die until 1849 and she becomes part of this newspaper discussion of what actually happened. in april of 1847, a man named
4:55 am
robert depester, a new york merchant living in connecticut sent a letter to a philadelphia newspaper. he introduced jacob barker, then living in new orleans, a patriot and warm supporter of the war of 1812 and presented the narrative barker had written spelling out his own version of how george washington's portrait had been saved in 1814. he stated his purpose was to make sure that mrs. madison received the credit for saving the portrait of george washington in august of 1814. what followed was barker's tale of events in which he insisted dolley instructed him and depester to save the portrait and that while she rode off in a carriage, the two men had taken the painting, released it from its frame, but kept it on its stretcher and taken it to northern virginia.
4:56 am
there, they found a widow to hold on to it temporarily and a few months later, the two men presumably retrieved it and returned it to its rightful owner. what appears to have set him off and inspired barker to write his tale was a rumor. supposedly circulated through andrew jackson that it had been an man named john mason who had saved the portrait. depester wrote dolley on may 5, 1847 that it was his wish to publish barker's narrative, quote, relating to the saving of the portrait of washington. credit has been given to others. he sent barker's piece to dolley. silence then ensued for ten months. presumably, dolley did not respond. ten months later, he said daneial carol, a new actor in the drama said credit belonged
4:57 am
to his father, not to her. would dolley send a note confirming their claim dolley ordered the picture saved, this is depester saying would dolley please send the note, confirming she had ordered the picture saved and delegated that task to depester and barker. dolley complied, on may 29, 1848, depester advised her daniel carol was still crusading for the reputation of his father. thus -- then in 1865, and this is after dolley was dead, but i just want to add this one piece. there was an additional contender for who saved the national icon. that was 1865. the contender was already dead for a year at that time. but that makes four, other than dolley, john mason, charles carol and jacob barker.
4:58 am
let's look at who they were. john mason, who plays the most minor role here was a friend of the madisons. the son of george mason, father of the bill of rights, a merchant, banker and businessman who served in the war of 1812 and lived on an island now known as roosevelt island in the potomac river between georgetown and virginia. he never claimed glory, but there was gossip jackson asserted the honor for mason. it's not known why. we do know that john mason was with james madison on the 23rd and 24th and not in washington, d.c. john pierre was born in france and immigrated to the united states around the time of the french revolution. president madison hired him as a
4:59 am
chef and he remained in that position until the british razed the building. thereafter, he worked at the bank of the united states and bank of the metropolis. he was the madison's caretaker for the house on la fayette square down the block after they acquired it from the cuts family. dolley and he remained in touch throughout her life. he did not die until 1864. in their correspondence, there's no whisper of him being responsible for taking down the washington painting. but then he wanted her to remain -- wanted to remain her friend, her aide, and in her employ and would have had no reason to contradict her version of the events on august 24th. he never claimed the honor but james madison's butler, paul
5:00 am
jennings, did so for him, and may i point out that we have the pleasure this morning of having a direct descendant of paul jennings with us. in the former slave memoir, which was published in 1865, one year after his death, jennings recounted that while it had often been asserted when dolley escaped from the president's house, quote, she cut out from the frame the large portrait of washington and carried it off. this is totally false. rather, quote, john and mcgraw, the president's gardner, took it down and sent it off on a wagon. that leaves us with a question, why would paul jennings say it was suisaux and not madison who
5:01 am
was responsible for saving the portrait of george washington? sit, of course, possible that he was one of the men who took down the painting and thus should have received some measure of credit. the greatest argument against that scenario is that jennings wrote that he used a penknife to cut the painting out of its frame. we know, however, when the painting underwent renovation, in the 20th century, quote, the artist found on examination the canvas had never been cut. that doesn't mean it didn't come out of the frame, it stayed on the stretcher, but the picture was not cut with a penknife. the interesting thing about paul jennings is he did have an agenda. jennings was born in 1799 in montpelier. he was a slave and skilled domestic worker who at various times was probably a footman, a
5:02 am
waiter, and a porter before he became james' valet. his father was white. his mother was a combination of black and native american. he served the madisons for many years as a trusted slave/servant. there were real and painful problems in the relationship with his mistress. after james' death, dolley took paul to washington, which separated paul from his wife fanny, which meant they could only see each other occasionally. this remained true, even after she took a serious fall in 1844 that led to her death. dolley then gave him leave to go and mourn and grieve back in orange county. in 1845, dolley waffled about him, even drawing up emancipation documents then decided not to do that, but rented him out to president polk.
5:03 am
in 1846, she sold him to an insurance agent for $200. six months later, senator daniel webster bought jennings for $120, then allowed him to purchase his own freedom at $8 a month. jennings was freed in 1847 and therefore became an abolitionist. he probably was before, but he became a more active aboliti abolitionist who surely must have been upset at the treatment dolley meated out on one of her slaves who tried to escape to freedom on the ship called the "pearl" in 1848. by the time jennings wrote his memoir, he must have disliked his former mistress. as a black man and former slave to president madison, he could not say this publicly. so, he included the one hurtful thing he could that dolley had not saved the washington portrait.
5:04 am
the man had no motive to promote himself, but jennings did. daniel carol cared very much about who got the credit for saving the portrait. he presented the motive as dual to give credit to his father and reveal what he felt were barker's concealed but self-serving motives. carol said as much in his letter to the editor of the new york herald when he wrote the professed objective of the publication was to do justice to the venerable mrs. madison, but, he continued, the most superficial observer could not fail to perceive that while credit is awarded to that venerable lady, much more is claimed for mr. jacob barker himself. charles carol was a member of a wealthy catholic family. he moved to washington in 1811. in 1813, he purchased dumbarton
5:05 am
house frauf joseph nurse. he was a member of the board of bank of washington and a supporter of the president. charles carol may or may not have been at the mansion and may or may not have been due credit, but his son daniel undermined his testimony when he asserted carol ate dinner that day at the president's mansion. it's highly unlikely dinner was served or eaten that day. later, daniel carol, according to barker, offered to produce witnesses, but did not reveal names, thus, raising the question of anonymous witnesses. the question raised is why did daniel carol harbor ill will against jacob barker? it's possible he simply wanted the credit to stay in the family and felt injured by barker's testimony, especially as barker originally misidentified his father as charles carol of duddington rather than of bellevue.
5:06 am
it is possible an issue lay between them which this author is not aware. it is possible daniel carol felt barker was using the incident of the portrait to bolster a political career of which he, carol, disapproved. jacob barker was campaigning to become a member of the house of representatives from new orleans in 1847. barker was born a quaker. he was nominated to the position of congressional candidate at an independent convention. he was a democrat and supported zachary taylor for president. jacob barker proclaimed, quote, slavery was the greatest curse that was ever inflicted on the south. his race coincided with his bid to be recognized, not as a hero
5:07 am
of the wear of 1812 but as the major ally and defender of its greater heroine, dolley madison. carol had two possible motives for his claims. he may have disliked barker either personally or politically, and he may have felt his father simply deserved the credit he had never received and if you're curious, no, barker did not win the election. finally, there were jacob barker and robert depester. barker, by personality was an assertive man. he was known to be resilient, flamboyant. and pugnacious, but his claim to have carried out dolley's orders was backed by three specifics. to begin with, he was a strong supporter of james madison and the war of 1812. thus, when dolley asked for or received his help, it was not from a passing stranger. money was hard to come by after the war, especially after the
5:08 am
new england banks refused to lend any to madison's administration, and barker was one of the four men who lent money. he opened up a subscription to fund the effort. accounts of carting the picture off and bringing it back several weeks later. he supported dolley's account and in turn she supported his narrative in a letter she wrote him in 1847. her confirmation was argued by her nephew james cox who gave an argument before the historical society, but in it he not only reprinted the two letters from dolley that barker had included in his own memoir, but stated dolley gave the orders and mr. jacob barker and robert depester of new york aided by two colored boys took the portrait from the floor where mrs. madison left it.
5:09 am
cuts only knew what his aunt told him. in 1814, he was 9. cuts wanted to reinforce any version his aunt told. cuts certainly had the motive, feeling a loyalty to support dolley's version of event. depester and barker for their part may have believed that the tale would help barker win his election that he ultimately lost, or they may have been defending their memory of what actually happened. or both. historians cannot establish with absolute certainty what happened to the portrait of george washington on the afternoon of august 24th. as i have said, the best evidence we have is dolley's letter to mary elizabeth. the portrait was an icon of tremendous international importance. had the british captured it, they might have burned it in effigy or paraded it around the streets of london. that the americans saved it, a symbol of prowess.
5:10 am
it is quite possible dolley did in fact order the painting to be saved. she understood its iconic value but there's no certainty. so, what do we learn from the story? the first is the story of evidence, which historians and journalists have repeated endlessly which is you need to be certain what your evidence is and that you need to know what were the motives of anybody saying anything because all of us have a reason to say what we say. and finally, we need to be cautious that into a space that is empty, something will prevail. in this case, it was dolley's own letter. we learned something about dolley madison. we learned number one she wanted to be know as the savior of
5:11 am
george washington's portrait. she wanted to be honored for bravery and courage in war. most important, she felt the single anecdote could save her husband's reputation on the day the british raised the white house. when she sent a letter to margaret baird smith and then confirmed that version in the 1840s, she not only promoted her own image, but also did what a wife should do to create the best possible public relations for her husband on a disastrous day in american history. >> now, let me just add here, what i haven't included and didn't have the time and space to include are all the negative things that were being said about the madisons at the time. so, as a backdrop to dolley's determination to put the best face forward, we also must remember she was doing this with
5:12 am
this, if you will, this background for her that she had been criticized and her husband had been criticized. it's not simply that dolley had some ego, she did, but she was a loyal champion of her husband. she would have gone out of her way at any point in her life to defend james madison. [ applause ] any questions? is my evidence so conclusive no one has any -- [ inaudible question ] >> the previous speaker said that monroe came back about two days after the burning. when did she come back -- >> at about the same time.
5:13 am
the first night she -- oh, what was happening during the next two days before the madisons returned to washington, d.c. they were both floating around the countryside. there are various legends about this. it seems as if dolley went to the house of a mrs. love, whose parents actually were at her wedding to james madison, but she, herself, was also a member of the lee family, a very federalist family. love would visit the madisons during his presidency in the white house, but her father would not. then she apparently went to a tavern and there are stories about the tavern and people said oh, we have been destroyed in washington and we won't let you into the tavern, how can we admit you into this space? what do we know? we know it's in the newspapers. we don't have any -- that's what
5:14 am
i'm trying to say. we have very little evidence. they were too busy to write and it's possible if something had been written, dolley or james would have destroyed it. >> it's a wonderful talk, so, if i could encourage people to come to the mike, by the way, but if i could ask, so you have the wonderful collection of letters. i remember reading some of her letters where she's sleeping with the saber under the bed. can you talk about the letters, the timing of them? they feel like public relations campaign and i wondered if that was true? >> i don't think so. i think she really wasn't afraid. why she wasn't afraid is embedded in who she was. she said yes, she was not afraid. she kept a tunisian saber by her side, slept with a tunisian slabslab saber by her side. i think the publicity campaign
5:15 am
really was this two-day letter, supposedly written to lucy in august 23rd, 24th, 1814 because that went public. that went public in a publication of note. she was the only woman who would be included in that volume. margaret baird smith was a woman of great repute, a noted writer, and margaret baird smith republished that letter. that's how we have the letter. we don't have her copy of it, we have the -- well, we do, but what people know is this printed version that margaret smith included in her portrait, or if you will, the first biography of dolley madison in 1834. i think that was a spin or a public relations campaign, which is why we have to treat it as that. that's why i say that her letter
5:16 am
in december of 1814, to me, is better evidence than this famous letter school children still read. >> in the washington, d.c. tour guide. there's quite a few tour guides here. i have a question. this is not been mentioned at all. i understood, i learned that she not only saved the wonderful portrait of george washington, but she also saved her portrait. was that saved at the same time? i haven't heard nobody mention that. thank you. >> he may have evidence, i don't. i have no evidence for that whatsoever. i would put that down to rumor and conjecture. but i absolutely don't know. >> that's how most of us learned that. >> you know, there was also a part of the urban legend about
5:17 am
dolley is she saved the state papers, and in fant, it was steven pleasanton who saved the state papers. he was the clerk in the state department. so there was a famous, reasonably famous picture done in the early 19th century about the macedonian -- who mentioned that yesterday? andrew lambert did, that dolley madison has perhaps trampled on it. we have no evidence of that, either. but the portrait shows her trampling on the flag and it shows james madison at the dinner and in 1840s, when those who were around during the war are trying to preserve what they consider accurate memory, edward
5:18 am
coles, her cousin and james madison's secretary said, well, james madison wasn't there. dolley was there and she was standing with edward coles. if you go to the digital edition, you can find that picture, but the picture is a lie. or it's myth. or, it's a wonderful, sort of popular culture image that portrays something about dolley madison that wasn't true but carries a kind of truth that we want to believe. >> last question -- >> you said something that could be taken here as sacrilegious. i think most of us don't know what you meant and we would like an explanation. you referred to george mason as the father of the bill of rights. >> all right. fair enough. george mason. yes, okay. i stand corrected.
5:19 am
>> when i first heard your talk and you quoted the original letter of dolley madison, there was the phrase cabinet papers. could it be -- now, do you know what she meant? could it be that there were notes of cabinet meetings? >> could. >> that are different than the bill of rights and constitution and declaration of independence? >> exactly. there was a paper in the white house history about stephen pleasanton that i haven't read yet, but we should probably all read that. >> there is an article by jesse craps in our hand out on saving the records during the war of 1812. >> isn't there something also in the white house historical society? >> i don't know. >> so, it says here, this is a copy of her letter from the
5:20 am
dolley madison digital edition. at this late hour, a wagon has been procured. i have filled it with plate and valuable portable articles belonging to the house. let's see. my husband desired me to be ready at the moment. i have pressed as many cabinet papers into trunks that fill one carriage. that is what you are referring to. the answer is they may have been in -- they didn't have filing cabinets. be stephen pleasanton had taken the state department papers but there were other papers that needed to be saved and they were
5:21 am
in a cabinet. and she did not say anything beyond that. there's no evidence she actually did that other than she said she did that. 20 years later, i don't -- i think we need to take it with a grain of salt and not worry about it too much. what we really need to understand is what dolley madison was trying to achieve for herself and her husband. >> i think the problem is the cabinet was on the second floor of the white house. >> you know much more about that than i do. >> and the papers, the famous papers, the state papers were in a different building entirely. >> pleasanton took them from the building and she stuffed what she could into these trunks. was it a cabinet? >> a cabinet room. >> it was a cabinet room, all right, so we have it here on
5:22 am
authority that interprets this. so it makes sense. she took what was from the white house or as much as she could take on her husband's instructions. again, we don't -- what i'm trying to say here is, did she? we know she said she did and maybe she did. i'm not saying she didn't. i'm saying we don't have conclusive evidence that she did. so, whether that kind of conclusive evidence is important to you as a citizen, as an interpreter, as a historian, a journalist, you know, i'm a documentary editor. i stand corrected by ken boling and i should actually add that into a note that specifies it for the dolley madison digital edition, but we only know what we know.
5:23 am
>> we are out of time. >> okay. >> may i ask one more question, please? [ applause ] here are some highlights for this coming weekend. friday, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, the nebraska supreme court will hear an oral argument on the keystone xl pipeline, saturday at 6:00 p.m. on the communicators, michael cops and robert mcdowell. with campaign 2014 gearing up, watch the latest debates on c-span. sunday at noon, debates between incumbent democratic senator kay hagan and thom tillis. and from the california governors race, jerry brown and republican nominee neel kashkari. friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, john yew shares his poin on international law and what effect it has on the behavior of
5:24 am
powerful nationals. mike gonzalez and how hispanics can make gains in the vote. and sunday, our three-hour conversation and your phone calls with the former chair on civil rights. friday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3, authors and historians talk about the burning of washington dern tduring the war of 1812. saturday, the building of the hoover dam, and 8:00, the anniversary of the pardon of richard nixon. find our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400, send us a tweet, or join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. also from the symposium on the british burning of washington, d.c. during the war of 1812, remarks from ralph
5:25 am
eshelman. he's a historical consultant to the national park service for the star spangled national historic trail. this is about 50 minutes. our final speaker this morning, ralph will provide us with more historical fact about some of the historical myths that have grown up around the war of 1812. resources in maryland, the national parks service and protection program and served as a consultant for the star spangled trail. he has published five books in the district of columbia and a guide to historic sites in the district of columbia and has appeared in six documents on the war of 1812. in 2009 he was designated an
5:26 am
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
5:27 am
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
5:28 am
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.
5:29 am
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
5:30 am
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?
5:31 am
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
5:32 am
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
5:33 am
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
5:34 am
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
5:35 am
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
5:36 am
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
5:37 am
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?
5:38 am
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.
5:39 am
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
5:40 am
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 navy yard, not on the night of august 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.
5:41 am
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
5:42 am
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
5:43 am
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
5:44 am
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
5:45 am
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
5:46 am
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
5:47 am
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
5:48 am
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.
5:49 am
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.
5:50 am
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
5:51 am
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
5:52 am
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
5:53 am
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
5:54 am
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
5:55 am
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
5:56 am
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
5:57 am
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
5:58 am
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
5:59 am
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
6:00 am
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

88 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on