this afternoon's session beginning with andrew lambert, challenge, naval war of 1812. >> my name is stewart mclauren, and i'm the president of the white house historical association where we are privileged to convene today for this significant event. we're honored to have with us today two members of the board of directors of the white house historical association, the honorable stock and kiplinger. we're also honored to have with us today mr. william almond, who is the curator of the white house. this program commemorates

bicentennial of one of america's most critical but overlooked conflicts. with the gathering of extraordinary scholars and experts in history field, next two days sure to educate and inspire, enhance our understanding of the war of 1812. the white house historical mission echos symposium goal, echos public on history of white house. we're so pleased to host this d day, the study of white house history. this event could not be possible without the partnering and support of our co-sponsors united states historical society. we thank two wonderful partners for being with us today and cricks they have made to make this a successful event. we would also like to extend a

special word of thanks to the company that generously overrode this. if you're with us for dinner you'll receive a special gift made from kim art for this symposi symposium. we're grateful for the relationship we've had 34 years in the production of our white house christmas ornament. this began in 1981 and a very significant part of what we do given proceeds of the sale of this ornament go to support our work with the white house. take a moment to visit our shop, right across the courtyard behind you today as well as online at www.white house history.org to obtain 2014 christmas ornament. finally to white house association in washington and those watching on c-span from

across america, 14 prestigious supporters guide us through one of our most significant periods in history. to begin our full program, it's my pleasure to welcome president and ceo of james madison montpelier to present our session one apprehenders. >> good afternoon. it's so wonderful to be here. i wanted to say our board chair in may joins us as many montpelier board members. i hope under the circumstances a chance to meet our leadership. could not be more pleased to have this ton to sponsor this next two days, mr. madison's war and the burning of washington city. declaring war, congress and the president exercised pourt that

were granted by the constitution. for our young country only three decades removed from war of independence. the war of 1812 tested many of the ideas in the constitution and it called upon madison to abide by limitation of powers he worked so hard to institute. as we commemorate sobering events of 1814, this panel will be shedding light on scholarship and ideas about origins and outcomes of the war. fittingly i love we begin with the british context of the war. i'm pleased to welcome to the program dr. andrew lambert. he's professor of naval history at kings college in london. in addition to writing about british strategy and technology, he's the author of an award winning volume on the war titled "the challenge, britain against america in the naval war of 1812."

it was just honored with the anderson award. if i can have you help me join in welcoming dr. lambert to the podium. [ applause ] >> have you very much for extremely kind introduction. the war of 1812 is somewhat ironic back home. we didn't know it happened. it's a great honor to be here today. my thanks to the team at white house historical association and all that managed to put this esplanade it event together. it's important when viewing great events of national history to take a look outside and to see what everybody else is doing at the same time where this particular set of events in this country fits into the picture.

the war of 1812 in world history and to put that relationship between britain and america in 1812. the war of 1812 presented problems for both side of the atlantic. in the united states james madison decision for war split the country. a conflict of economic interests. south and west welcomed it as an opportunity for territorial expansion and address of other significant internal issues. news of the war reached a british government which had recently been reconstructed, prime minister shot in the house of commons and replacement liverpool was not thought to be destined for a long-term in office. in fact, he would last 15 years, prime minister, but nobody knew that at the time. he was not thought to be a great leader, an inspiring figure.

he was not a man with a command of the rhetoric of parliament or, indeed, a public person ark, a heroic figure but he turned out to be a very good manager of a cabinet at a time they needed management because the king, zi king of this cunning george i -- country, george iii plunging intoñró madness. we needed a leader that solid, reliable and turned out to be that man. the tenth year in the conflict with napoleon bon mart. war broke out in 1803. issues many and various but waging war against greatest warrior in american history for a decade. they had managed motte to lose

partly was they lived on an island. they had optimism the war of 1812 would end well. lat major victory, battle of trafalgar, since then hung around the mountains knows french and hoping the rest would realize being ruled by france was a bad idea. some europeans had seen this but not all of them. they were not especially worried by american declaration of war. the united states was quite a small country, had relatively limited resources and no great reputation for having a large and powerful army or large navy either. what the british were worried about was additional strain on already seriously overstretched resources. i show you this to remind people that the louisiana purchase was

transformational for the united states it turns a country which looks to the atlantic to one that looks to the rest of the contine continent. not just west but north and south as well. the war between britain and america was, of course, a consequence of the anglo french war, britain's strategy of locating europe with extreme legal measures that brought on the clash with the united states. after the destruction of his navy at trafalgar, napoleon instituted a total war against britain. his strategy was to exclude british trade from europe and try to bankrupt the british. napoleon understood the basis of british power was notaéó men, armies or even fleets, it was trade and money. if napoleon could break british economy, britain would surrender. his continental system would

harness european continent in a war against britain. they would exclude all british trade from europe on penalty of seizure and destruction. the british counter-blockade did exactly the reverse. it cut europe off from the rest of the world. europeans had to fight 12 year long war without coffee and there were a few other things they missed as well. british counter-blockade cut europe off from africa, asia and americas and fundamentally threatened america's economic development. from 1803 to 1812 american shippers, merchants and traders made a lot of money being the last carrier, last country that could carry goods from french  to europe through the british blockade. they were also trading with the british. neither the british nor the french treated the americans particularly kindly.

the british would arrest their ships and send them before a court and napoleon simply burned them. but the american government thought napoleon was less dangerous than the british. or indeed, less dangerous to their interests. the continental system, not this continent but the european continent, was beginning to destroy the economies of other european states. napoleon protected france from the economic war by asset stripping all of the conquered territories. first country to rebel would be russia. napoleon's only serious ally and a major trading nation with a big export trade geared towards supplying british market. inside continental system from 1807 to 1811, russia saw her economy collapse. being part of napoleon's team was very bad for your business. in 1811, the czar of russia, alexander realized if he carried

on like this, his country would be bankrupt and he would follow his father to an early grave. the last time russia made war on britain, the czar was murdered and they changed the government. basically most of the landowners in russia relied on selling goods to the british to pay their bills. the czar decided bankruptcy and debt was slightly less bad than being invade by napoleon but only slightly. even as the war of 1812 is about to start, the cracks in napoleon's system are becoming quite fundamental but the british haven't yet seen the future. 1811, the long-running interchange of arguments reached a high point with the incident between u.s. president and little belt. the little belt is the small one with the union flag. a case of mistaken identity according to john rogers, a case of deliberate aggression according to arthur bingham who commanded the little belt.

but british, far too busy doing other things. in 1811, 1812, napoleon beginning to gear up for russia, the great campaign that will decide outcome of the conflict in europe. the war depends on the french winning. if russia collapses back into the continental system, napoleon dominant in europe, what possible hope have they got of carrying on. they will have to make terms. it will be possible then to negotiate with them on a range of issues. but the british wouldn't surrender to napoleon, little known to james madison. the main british army fighting successfully in spain and duke of wellington and royal navy protecting global trade. the british had no spare ships, men or money to fight a war with anybody else. indeed, during the war of 1812 british military effort on land

and sea was rarely more than 7% of their land and sea forces. they simply didn't have any more to spare. they didn't have a choice. that was all their was. british defensive, largely reactive. americans had the initiative. they chose where to fight and how to fight. as we know, the united states opened a conflict with what should have been a three-pronged defensive and what is now canada and a surge of warships and privateers in the western atlantic to cut britain's economic life lines. the canadian frontier became the main military theater. for three years heavily outnumbered british regulars, canadian militia and warriors defended the border. to meet attacks british shifted some troops into the canadian theater. they came from the west indies, not from europe. the british moved no soldiers from the european theater until after the napoleon conflict. as long as napoleon remained in

power, british strategy would be defensive. the border did not move. this was a long-running but ultimately stalemated conflict. this left the madison administration with an alternative strategy, the destruction of british floating trade and wrecking of britain's economy. strategy relied on private earring. united states navy was too small to do this. it needed assistance of a large number of privately owned and operated licensed predators. the british response to the american declaration of war, canadian frontier was the appointment of vice admiral seen here with his red sash on. a diplomat, highly successful naval operator, he was sent to command the entire theater with powers to negotiate an armistice and early return. that is what the britain's

wanted. are the americans serious about this war. are they not prepared to think about this and go back to business as usual. warren's job was to do everything but wage war, until he knew americans were absolutely determined on fighting. his command stretched from new finland to mexico and hampered by inadequate means, poor communications and very limited support from his home government. his defense of british shipping in the atlantic would determine the outcome of the war, but only after the americans declared they were desperately serious about waging it. only then could he turn defense into offense imposing a devastating economic blockade that simply treated the united states as another part of napoleon's continental system, something to be blockaded and economically ruined. initially, a shortage of ships and limited rules of engagement hampered warren's business.

but even in late 1812, he began the difficult job of capturing and incarcerating american privateer fleet. as they filled with sailors, the privateer fleet would begin to falter. five months after war did warren learn americans were determined to continue the conflict. he was then tasked with setting up system to protect shipping from new world to old, caribbean and british north america into british ports. by this stage over 150 british merchant ships had already been captured and more privateers were fitting out. there was money to be made in private earring. it was an attractive option. london underestimating the scale of the threat and ignorant of the length and complexity of the united states coastline sent in

very few resources. what they did send initially were not of the first quality. they woke up when the united states navy won three shattering victories over the royal navy. these successes in the autumn of 1812 made the british government pay attention. here we see a constitution taking guerriere in the wonderful picture which manages to disguise the key fact of the battle. the gerrier only two-thirds of the firepower and two-thirds the crew. if the american captain lost the battle, he would have made a very poor showing indeed. that's not the story that and in the republican newspapers. second battle, macedonia was embarrassing, british captain was blind and a fool. put up a very creditable fight against, once gena far bigger american ship.

the two defeats were neither dishonorable or especially disadvantageous. the british quickly got their crew back. the one thing they were shot of was sailors as we know from prewar impressment, american ships won the battles instead of carrying on to destroy british merchant ships had to go home from winning repairs. for the cost of winning some glory, the americans had ruined their mission. as was said, these were strategically irrelevant victories but did provide government, which had a lot to explain, with some very useful propaganda. the fact the administration had hamstrung the navy for 12 years, it made it all more ironic it was the navy that rode to their rescue. british government belatedly ordered reprisals against united states on the 3rd of october, 1812, news that didn't reach the new world until the end of november. november 21st, british

government imposed strict and rigorous on the delaware river. the british read division list of congress. they knew who voted for war and who didn't. if your congress voted for war, british blockaded you and attacked you. if your congressman didn't vote for war, what was left to lurn. the best way to defeat the enemy, divide and conquer, not overwhelm. a history of overwhelming anybody. furthermore, northeastern providing huge amounts of resource for british war effort in spain in particular and duke of wellington eight american grown grain. food supplies crossed into north america. good people of vermont fed the british army encanada for the entire war. to their enormous profit one has to understand. critically economic blockade

finally established eight months after the war had begun. they had been a golden eight months in which it was operating both peace and war at the same time. ultimately this blockade would be the decisive strategy. it would break american economy, bankrupt the state and leave it unable to borrow money or raise credit internally or internationally. united states would run out of money. money, money, and more money. when you run out of that, you have to stop fighting. there's the constitution -- unlike the picture, this is by a british artist. it gets the scales of the ships, well -- [ laughter ] >> that's actually not quite as accurate as it might be. the java was a little bigger than that. it does look like the constitution is shooting at a rowing boat. the decisive battle of the war of 1812 happened september 1812, battle of bar dino. you're familiar with it.

one of the great moments, enough to write a vast symphonic work, a significant novel and bring down a great emperor. on a single fieldwork on this day of battle more russians died than were killed or died of illness in the whole war of 1812 on all sides. this really was a titanic clash of two emperors and two vast armies numbering close on 200,000 men each. the war of 1812 would not be fought by armies of 200,000 men. wouldn't be fight by 200,000 men all tolled. this also took the pressure off britain and released naval

reinforcements from fleet, an important fleet keeping baltic open for trade for the previous five years. those ships and key personnel were moved across to the north american station. the british very carefully picked out the right ships and right officers to send to blockade united states, best men, many of them proteges of nelson, many we come to. furthermore with british trade open, british didn't need to buy grain from russians anymore. russians had plenty of grain. it was a lot closer to britain. by the summer of 1813, vast british battleships and numerous frigates available to blockade boston, chesapeake. united states navy would find it very difficult to get to sea and the privateers would not find it easy to attack well organized and protected british convoys. among the men mo ho would arrive in 1813, none more famous or relevant to this conference than

a man made captain by nelson, picked out by one of the stars of the future by the great man himself. he was sent over here to take the offensive onto the american coast and accelerate peace. we know what he did. his reinforcements enabled warren to impose naval blockade for the entire american coast in 1813, pinning frigates in boston and new york. this meant threats to convoys was merely from privateers. a convey with a frigate alongside was safe from american predation. new york, the largest american port producing one-quarter of the national revenue from customs due was closed. the revenue was drying out because most federal revenue came from import and export dues. state revenue fell to catastrophic levels. it was impossible to pay for the war, it would have to be paid for on borrowing.

american stock failed to sell, a clear sign something was wrong. quote, pressure of the blockades was immediately felt. turned in britain's favor june. first states in macedonia driven into new london by british squadron from which they emerged until the war was over. uss chesapeake seen her stars and stripes under union jack captured in a battle that lasted 11 minutes. the most brill yaiantbrilliant, heroic feet. the fact he won the battle meant that james lawrence, captain of the chesapeake picked the wrong enemy. against an ordinary british frigate he would have done very well. with those three frigates removed from the american navy's list of ships at sea, the american naval threat effectively evaporated. maybe now focused on privateers.

by the end of the war 6.5,000 privateer crew locked up in british prison, a particularly unpleasant place to send them. we built them out of french but ran out of frenchmen, so sent americans there as well. british hoped the war would go away. they wanted americans to say, we're sorry, we'll go back. on the table from day one to the very last day because that's what the peace treaty was. that's all the british wanted. 1813 shannon action got the british quite excited. the contemporary cartoon by crookshank summed up british vie of the war. this was annoying and rather wished it would go away. 1813 was not about america, it was about napoleon. there was another great battle in september 1813. napoleon lost 73,000 men from an army of a quarter of a million. german empire collapsed,

retreated into france, the writing was on the wall for his empire. the british poured many and munitions into europe to defeat napoleon. they did not send men or money to north america. british would have taken status quo any time. they defended canada but didn't have resources to do anything else. in 1813, raid in chesapeake bay closed down bases, damaging property for those that voted for war. end of 1813, economic blockade stretched to maine, new england block aided, too. this ld promote sectional conflict. but british options were very limited. 1813, they had a chance to do something they wanted to do for 20 years to capture estuary, one place to invade england from. they sent all the troops to do this. they lost. it was embarrassing.

they just didn't have the manpower to do anything serious in europe. europe was far more important than north america. the idea they had any offensive plans here is untrue. throughout the war, more british troops in the west indies than defending canada. the political power of west indian memphis ants was far greater than political interest in canada. west indian commercial interest saw admiral warren replaced by vice admiral cochran in the spring of 1814. he, too, will feature in the war. as peace approached in europe, the british foreign secretary told europeans he would not discuss maritime belligerent rights at a peace conference. blockade, impressment. he told americans the same thing. these were the bases of power. as a small, weak state, it

maximized the strechngth of its navy. british naval power kept apart and condemned matters into a solitary conflict. once americans had taken maritime belligerent rights off the agenda peace could be discussed again. a town in belgium occupied by british troops, they might as well have the treaty in britain. americans resorted interesting mechanisms to defeat the navy but not hugely impressed. you may kiss my -- mr. yankee doodle. not impressed. here is a german cartoon from napoleon, emperor of the world to emperor of a very small island. the germans loved this. here is the main player in our story. this is admiral george cockburn.

this is how he wished to be remembered. this is the man telling about himself. he thought this was one of the more important events. as we know, the occupation of washington and destruction of public building was a major event. more important it sparked a run on the american banks. everybody who had any cash took it out of american banks and put it to canadian banks in british government securities which paid better and weren't defaulting. october 4th, united states became insolvent, a month later defaulted on the terms of the louisiana purchase. yet neither the destruction of washington or the defeat of british forces had any serious effect on british policy. the british offered status quo ante because they wanted the war to go before even after the the downfall of napoleon, there was not a war here they wished to fight. the peace treaty signed on 18th september, 1814, was little more than a recognition of that fact.

here is some of dockburn's handiwork. the battle an interesting event. an important signing of the treaty. by the time the treaty was signed, the united states was in default by 3 million pounds, $3 million, $15 million outstanding on interest payments. national debt rose by 200%. little wonder canada impressment british maritime rights abandoned. two more battles. the battle of new orleans you all heard of. this is one that's not in the textbooks. british captured american flagship uss president of sandy hook january 15 in another action both captains fought brilliantly. the british captain was more brilliant. no accident, the president, direct descendant of this ship. when you walk into the mess, if

you stop before under the circumstances to the bath, you'll see four engravings of this battle. this is one british remember. war of 1812, what 1812 is about, not interfering in settlement of europe. congress of vienna, open for business and unlikely to lead to another major conflict. that was britain's war aim. in the whole course of 22 years fighting the french, british took from the rest of europe two very small islands. one in the mediterranean called malta and another and that was the entire access of territory in this war. they gave it all up for peace and stability. and then, of course, napoleon came back but not for long. he was rapidly arrested after waterloo, the man who run the block aid in new york for the previous two years. when the war was over, the

republican party did what you normally do as a political organization when you presided over a failure, they declared it a great success. the republican party's speechwriters and newspaper men and everybody else celebrated a great victory and they erected a great victory. three frigate victories in new orleans which came down in years. scott understood how to create fabulous stories realized what the americans were doing and rather regretted they hadn't been taught a more severe lesson. they realized british weren't to fight a war for nebulousafter suspects as teaching lessons. new americans pens would create a victory. also understands the enduring legacy of 1812 would be not territory, not maritime belligerent rights but a distinct american culture. the war of 1812 forced united

states to face up to themselves and recognize it wasn't part of something else. it was of itself, a country that would have its own culture, paint its own picture, write its own stories, create an american identity and this war is the spark from which that emerge. a distinctive new world identity, one with privileged landscape, scale and westward opportunities over the narrow confines and dusty histories of europe. perhaps the fiery destruction of a mansion was the conflict's most appropriate metaphor. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> we now have a short time for

question-and-answers. i'll be more than happy to do some questions. please. >> how did america's finances recover after the war, was trade sufficient to rebuild the treasury? did we default on loans. >> economic problems of the you united states were ended by the conclusion of peace. it opened up international money markets to america. it also persuaded american financiers something worth investing in. you really don't think this country is something you want to invest in long-term. the resumption of peace opens up domestic taps. it also leads to a massive boom in trade. all that trade that didn't happen from 181 to 1815, it happens pretty much as soon as the war ends.

news of peace in london prompts every memphis ant in the whole of the united kingdom to load up with goods they think will sell in america. huge armada crosses atlantic, flooded with goods, business booms again. then an economic setback but essentially the united states was able to recover its equilibrium and recover economic a activity in the aftermath. peace is good for the economy, war is not. a lesson the british had learned many years before. >> yes. have you seen what you call public record -- >> sorry. mic coming. >> have you seen from the public record office any orders to coburn and ross to burn the public buildings in washington?

the implication being retaliation. >> thanks very much. this is one of the great questions about what happens in washington. were they operating under specific orders to do something as specific as burning the white house. certainly there was a sense after the occupation of what is now toronto and destruction of the public buildings ending other parts on the niagara front where there had been cross-border destruction of public and private buildings by both sides, the public buildings of the state that started the war were fair game. nobody in europe would have thought this was in any way surprising. the whole operation was organized by george coburn. he's the only man among those in command who had been here to work out what the target was and how to get there. the chronology is quite clear. the army with ross and alexander cochran arrives in the che

chesapeake and the next morning they set off and land. it's coburn's operation and he is responsible for everything that happens. he had no problem with that, but he didn't have specific orders to do it. his boss alexander cochran was very supportive. he had lost his brother in the revolutionary war and harbored some dislike of americans because of that. it was pa divisive war. many remembered the conflict. they fought as young men. or in the case of alexander cochran as a ship captain in the royal navy. memories of the last war were still very strong. they were quite raw for most people. >> you mentioned burning of

government buildings. we've heard it often said no private buildings were burned. pamela scott showed me a drawing i noticed before but hadn't thought about in this context. a drawing by latrobe in december 1815 that shows george washington's buildings burned, ruins of them, and a large tavern nearby near the capital also in ruins. this is a year after the british were there. it seems as though they must have done the burning. >> thank you for that. did the british destroy any other buildings in washington other than public buildings. the one private building they destroyed was a building from which a sniper shot general ross's horse, missing general ross i think was the target. they didn't burn the building, part avatar i have, so they pulled it down. they destroyed offices of national intelligence but any sound a general and admiral

would like to see the press suppressed. george coburn took out letter c out of the box so they couldn't write any more scurrilous articles about him. they had with satan, not to satan's advantage. he took a particular delight. he decided he hadn't done enough and got the press out as well. remember, in the aftermath of that occupation, there was a tremendous storm. there was a lot of damage done by the storm as well. so that may have been storm damage. certainly no record british destroys any other private buildings. >> thank you very much for being here. as part of coburn and ross's operation, of course there was squadron under captain gordon

which came, ascended potomac river, a rather remarkable adventure themselves. as they came up, engaged for washington, they sailed by mt. vernon. the very symbol of america with george washington. why didn't they just blow up mt. vernon? >> thank you very much. tomorrow evening i'm going to be speaking onabout that very operation. the reason they didn't blow up mt. vernon, george washington was a liberal hero. as far as british liberals on the left of politics were concerned, george washington was a very significant figure in the creation of british democracy. he taught important lessons by representation. they didn't burn the building. they stopped and the band came up and played washington's march. so the british were not making war on america. they were making war on the american government.

they recognized that half the population of america were not enthusiastic about this war. the federalist response to the war was not particularly engaged. they saw that this was very much a partisan conflict within america, and they very carefully targeted those americans they believed to be the causes of the war. hence, the use of the division list. george washington, he's off limits. he's part of the history of britain and america. remember, he's an officer in george's army first. he is spared as are almost all public buildings, private buildings the british can spare. >> thank you. >> one left. >> at one point was part of the british warnings for concluding the conflict to create some sort of native american territory in the old northwest and what happened to that for it to go

status quo? >> the british government's position on the peace treaty was not entirely unified. the british minister, who was most involved in running the war, secretary of state for war, was also responsible for british colonies. and his view was it would be a really good idea if we could build a buffer zone between united states and british north america to reduce possibility of conflict. the native american people were seen as an ideal opportunity to do this. his cabinet colleagues disagreed vehemently. they didn't want to spend $10 million a year to improve the border of canada. it was outvoted. international lawyers started a look at the problems of creating a buffer zone which belonged to a people who had no residential qualifications and did not have any national identity.

it would have been almost impossible to create a territory to give to native americans. there was simply no framework to do this. european legal systems did not recognize rights of native peoples, which is how you're able to sweep west across the continent. no legal framework for giving them national identity. it was an idea. it was used as a way of pushing americans away from talking about maritime rights. the british put something up which they had no intention of trying to execute, because it was inchoate, no particular form. there was a line out west. it was never determined what that line was, who was inside it, how it would be policed. it was a great negotiating position because it made the americans think they had won something. what the british had done is make the americans worry about something which they couldn't care about. in exchange they got maritime rights off the treaty table.

it's a nice way of everybody feeling they won something, but there was no way this could have been set up. we would have to have agreed, washington and london, that native american peoples were a nation and they had a national identity rather than tribal people spread across the countryside in a completely different way. question? >> there's a william charles cartoon -- pair of cartoons, baltimore and other condemning alexandrians. i wonder if you could comment on that. >> william charles famous cartoonist makes fun of came alexandriaans. lives and works but is british. his cartoon is very much the republican view of the alexandrians, which was very unpleasant. he then used baltimore cartoon as a way of showing british

could be beaten. british weren't beaten in baltimore, they just decided they didn't want it. if you want to stop we can do it. 20,000 americans in a strong position in baltimore. british have less than 4,000 ground troops. how are they going to get into baltimore? the british didn't have another army. if they burned their army attacking baltimore, they had no more troops left. [ inaudible ] >> with alexandria, the picture is clear, a truly terrible mythic beast has got the citizens of alexandria on their knees with hair standing up on end, as, indeed, if you saw a real one. the british sailors are saying we need to get out of here before those american naval heroes turn up. john rogers. david porter, perry.

they did turn up and tried to stop british leave but they failed. british got back after some interesting exchanges of fire. it's a very important political cartoon but you have to read it as very much a partisan cartoon. just like the shannon chesapeake cartoon, it's one side of the argument. internal cartoon. it has no resonance with the british at all. this is republicans pointing the finger at the federalist and saying you're not patriotic. >> the score is even. last weekend alexandria challenged british navy to sporting events and the city won all three. >> i'm very pleased to hear that. the score of frigates was three each. as britain took tleef their prizes home and americans only

got screeria -- nigeria. -