okay. our next speaker this morning's session will be talking about dolly madison and the british invasion of washington, d.c. in the war of 1812. we have heard some things about dolly madison's role in the war of 1812. now, we'll hear more from holly

shulman, a former editor of the dolly payne todd madison papers. associate senior editor of the papers of james madison in 2004. dr. shooulman continued to publh dolly madison papers which she has grants from the historic preservation and records commission of the national archives. please welcome holly shulman. [ 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 edition. like the book, it's published by the university press. unlike the book is published by their electronic imprint, the name which is rotunda. if you go and you take a look at it, i hope you enjoy it. do you want me to do -- oh, okay. having said that, i want to thank, of course, as everyone speaking as thanked, the three organization that is have sponsored this and thank them for putting on a conference which is so beautifully focused so the papers can talk to each other in a way that doesn't happen at conferences. i would like to thank kathryn al

gore who is over there for introducing a more general view of dolly madison. what i'm going to do today is talk about dolly, not the burning of the white house, but her saving of the portrait of george washington. that really is the topic of my -- it's narrow, but the question then is, what could we learn from it. there was a famous biologist at harvard who once gave an image of looking, from a distance, at a fence, which had a knot hole in it. if you looked at this knot hole from a distance, it was a small part of the fence. if you put your eye to the knot hole, you could see the world. and yes, he studied eyes. in any case, let me begin here.

two stories about the war of 1812 are lodged in our collective memory. they remained in the present. they are told in books, in textbooks and in popular culture. one captures american victory over the british during the war. the other symbolizes american resistance. the first, a military success is about andrew jackson, who defeated the british in new orleans in january of 1815. the second is an act of defiance. that one is about dolly madison, who on august 24, 1814 saved the portrait of george washington from british. jackson american prowess and determination and stands for the triumph of the still young dolly is audacity mixed with

resolution and em bodies the weak, but pure, an unarmed woman, against the strong but foul, the enemy army. they did route the enemy, although it was an empty -- lives were lost in vain. in fact, we do not know whether or not dolly madison saved the portrait of george washington. no letters written either by dolly or james on august 24 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 dolly did when the british invaded washington remains uncertain into a vacuum of information, dolly imposed her own story. to understand the story of dolly

and the burning of the white house, we need to explore what we know happened and how and why she shaped her own legend. let us start with what we know from dolly'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, dolly 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 the dinner that day at the president's house. jones admitted her fears in the, quote, present state of alarm, but following social protocol, menned she imagined, quote, it will be mutually convenient to disspend of your hospitality and 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 dolly'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 nutting but what is horrible. i know not who to send this to and will say but little. soon afterwards, william jones, we identify as the husband of eleanor young jones, also secretary of the navy wrote a memo outlining his actions on the 24th. presumably 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 dolly, anna and anna's husband, richard cuts. jones then received word from james madison to go to the works west of georgetown. so, quote, at about 5:00, i set out in the company of the family of the president of mr. carol and of my own with mr. duvall and proceeded through georgetown to join the president and found madison crossed at mason's 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 it's extract

rather than a whole and it's printed in a newspaper, so what has happened between the writing and printing, we don't exactly know. an extract of a letter to a gentleman in this town stating jacob, a wealthy supporter handed dolley in the moments before. he 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 send manirva a quote of pure wine saveed from the president's house the morning of its destruction. are you mors spread after the

invasion the soldiers had drunk all the wine and none was left. this leaves us to wonder whether dolley was giving out bottles of salvaged wine to make the point the rumors were only that, rumors and that the president and his household were braving the circumstances and doing well. perhaps it was simply a gesture of warm regard to a woman friend. regardless, the president's wine, like the government and the country, had survived. on december 3rd, 1814, dolley wrote mary elizabeth hazel, wife of the architect benjamin henry and the daughter of a philadelphia merchant. the two men -- the two women had been friends from the 1780s and 1790s when dolley lived in philadelphia and mary elizabeth had very much been a partner in

decorating the president's mansion although like 150 years later, she was out of the written picture. dolley told her friends she, dolley, stayed in the president's mansion two hours until they reached the capitol. quote, on that very day, i sent out the silver and in parenthesis, nearly all, and velvet curtains, the cabinet papers, a few books and a small clock. everything else belonging to the public are own valuable stores of description, a part of my clothes and my servants clothes, et cetera, et cetera, in short, it would fatigue you to read the

list of my losses or account of the general dismay or particular distresses of your acquaintance. this letter simply enumerated what dolley had saved, lost, and how she felt about it. the tone is one of loss, not congratulations for bravery. her feelings of inadequacy 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 had a hand in saving george washington's portrait. however, it's a letter that's never or rarely quoted. that's what we have. a complete documentary evidence of dolley madison and what she did august 23 and 24th.

the contemporary documentary evidence, how she fled, what she rescued and details. madison was out of town, she held down the domestic front. she described herself as a woman without fear. the city was terrified. her sister, anna, was flying around in dread and in the face of enemy fire, she canceled her dinner party, saved what she could of national importance, including the famous portrait of george washington, then left town in the company of her sister, friend and other members of a party made up at least of cuts, carol, jones and duvall. her mood was surprisingly composed as she said i was so unfeminine as to be free from fear. in the hubub and scramble, they encounted event that is became

part of her wartime story, the saving of the portrait of george washington. this, however, was the moment she most wanted remembered. it's what she most wanted remembered about her years as a president's wife. indeed, the years that she reigned over washington. it was not dolley madison as a hostess or political factions or as the arby tor of tags. it was dolley madison as the hero of 1812. in 1834, we have now skipped 20 years. in 1834, she finally got her chance to prevent her interpretation of events. the occasion for this was that she received a request from margaret smith, the wife of the editor of the national

intelligencer and also writer and novelest, to supply smith for material for a bigraphical sketch of mrs. madison for the third volume of the portrait gallery for 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 largely to write from her own memory. but in one particular matter, dolley mailed margaret smith a letter. the letter she told smith she sent her sister lucy in august

of 1814. it was clearly important. quote, if you have lost or omitted to give it to her, it will be much to my injury, she instructed her nieces. so they passed on dolley's document. what exactly her nieces handed smith is controversial. dolley only sent a copy of an alleged original, not the original document itself. she told smith she didn't have it. lucy did. she told her niece, mary cuts, that mice had eaten it. moreover, the letter is and someone alluded it mattered in talking about this for the article in white house history. the letter that dolley sent to margaret smith is surprisingly unhurried for something written

in such tense circumstances and oddly purposive and formal. the letter of august 14 is about courage and bravery and her determination to prevail against the enemy and champion american independence. and it worked. to this day, when americans were called, they thank her for saving 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 smith, dolley madison stamped her own image. the question of who, exactly, saved the washington portrait and how they did so, however, became a matter of controversy in the 1840s. now we have skipped even later.

by this time, of course, james madison is dead. dolley does not die until 1849 and she becomes part of this newspaper discussion of what actually happened. in april of 1847, a man named robert depester, a new york merchant living in connecticut sent a letter to a philadelphia newspaper. he introduced barker, then living in new orleans as a patriot and supporter of the war of 1812 and presented the narrative barker had written spelling out his own version of how george washington's portrait was 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

dolley instructed him and depester to save the portrait while she road off in a courage. the two men took the painting from the frame, but kept it on its stretcher and took it to northern virginia. there, they found a widow to hold on to it temporarily and a few months later, think retrieved it and returned it to the rightful owner. what appears to have set him off and inspired barker to write his tale was a rumor. supposedly circulated through andrew jackson there was a man named general john mason who 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 presumed for ten months. dolley did not respond. ten months later, he said daneial carol, a new actor in the drama said credit belonged to his father, not to her. would dolley send a note conf m confirming their claim dolley ordered the picture saved, confirming dolley 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 crew saiding for the reputation of his father. then in 1865 and this is after dolley was dead, but i want to add this one piece, there was an additional contender for who saved the national icon.

that was 1865. the contender was already dead for a year at that time. but that makes four, other than dolley, john mason, charles carol and jacob barker. let's look at who they were. john mason, who plays the most minor role here was a friend of the madison's. the son of george mason, father of the bill of rights, a merchant, banker and businessman who served in the war of 1812 and served on roosevelt island in the potomac river between georgetown. he never claimed glory, but there was gossip jackson asserted the honor for mason. he was with madison on the 23rd

and 24th, not in washington, d.c. john pierre was born in france and immigrated to the united states around the time of the french revolution. president madison hired him as a chef and he remained in that position until the british raised the building. there after, 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 him remained in touch throughout her life. he died in 1864. in their correspondence, there's no whisper of him being responsible for taking down the washington painting. he wanted her to remain her

friend, her aide and her employ and would have had no reason to contradict her version of the events of august 24th. he never claimed the honor but james madison's butler, paul jennings did so for him. may i point out, we have the pleasure this morning of having a direct descendent 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, 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 him, not madison who was responsible for saving the portrait of george washington? sit, of course, possible that he was one of the men who took down the painting and thus should have received some measure of credit. the grace argument against that scenario is that jennings wrote that he used a penknife to cut the painting out of the frame. we know, however, when the painting underwent renovation, the artist found 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 mount peel yar. he was a slave and skilled worker who, at various times was a footman, a waiter and porter before he became james' valet. his father was white. his mother was a combination of black and native american. he served the madison's as a serve/servant. there were real and painful problems in the relationship with his mistress. after james death, dolley took to washington which separated him from, paul from his wife fanny. 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 poke. 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 there after became abolitionist and was 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. he 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 mrs. madison, but he continued the most superficial observer could not fail to perceive that while credit is awarded to that venerable lady, much more is

claimed for mr. jacob barker, himself. charles carol was a member of a wealthy catholic family. he moved to washington in 1811. in 1813, he purchased dumbarton house. 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 barker?

it's possible he simply wanted the credit to stay in the family and felt injured by barker's testimony, especially as barker originally misidentified his father as charles carol of duddington rather than of bellevue. it is possible an issue lay between them which this author is not aware. it is possible daniel carol felt barker was using the incident of the portrait to bolster a political career of which he, carol, disapproved. jacob barker was campaigning to become a member of the house of representatives from new orleans in 1847. barker was born a quaker. he was nominated to the position of congressional candidate at an independent convention. he was a democrat and supported

for president. jacob barker proclaimed, quote, slavery was the greatest curse that was ever inflicted on the south. his race coincided with his bid to be recognized, not as a hero of the war of 1812, fwu ally and defender of the greater heroin. he may have felt his father deserved the credit he never received and if you are curious, no, barker did not run the election. finally, there were jacob barker and robert depester. barker, by personality was an assertive man. he was known to be resilient, flamboyant. his claim to have carried out dolley's orders were carried out by specifics. he was a 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 banks refused to lend any. barker was one of the four men, 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 she supported his narrative in a letter she wrote him in 1847. her confirmation was reviewed by her nephew james , he not only e two letters from dolley that barker included in his memoir, but stated dolley gave the orders and mr. jacob bark ore

and robert g.l. depester of new york aided by two colored boys took the portrait from the floor. 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. they may have believed 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. it was an icon of tremendous

international importance. had the british captured it, burned it or paraded around the streets of london. that the americans saved it, a symbol of prowess. it is possible dolly ordered 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$e 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. nó/% 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. she wanted to be known as the savior of george washington's portrait. she wanted to be honored for bravery and courage in war. most important, she felt the single anecdote could save her husband's reputation on the day the british raised the white house. when she sent a letter to margaret smith and confirmed that version in the 1840s, she not only promoted her own image, but 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 adhere, what i haven't included here and didn't have time and space to include are the negative things said about the modson's at the time.

so, as a backdrop to dolley's determination to put the best face forward, we also must remember she was doing this with this, if you will, this background for her that she had been criticized and her husband had been criticized. it's not that she had 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 --

[ inaudible question ] >> at about the same time. the first night she -- oh, what was happening during the next two days before the madison's returned to washington, d.c. they were floating around the countryside. again, 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 madison's during his presidency in the white house, but her father would not. then she apparently went to a tavern and there are stories about the tavern and people said oh, we have been destroyed in

washington and we won't let you into the tavern, how can we admit you into this space? what do we know? we know it's in the newspapers. we don't have any -- that's what i'm trying to say. we have very little evidence. they were too busy to write and it's possible if something had been written, dolley or james would have destroyed it. >> it's a wonderful talk, so, if i could encourage people to come to the mic. but if i could ask, so you have a 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 don't think she was afraid. that is embedded in who she was. she said yes, she was not

afraid. she slept with the saber by her side. i think the publicity campaign really was this two-day letter, supposedly written to lucy in august 23, 24, 1814. that went public in a publication of note. she was the only woman who would be included in that volume. margaret smith was a woman of great repute, noted writer. margaret smith republished that letter. that's how we have the letter. we don't have her copy of it, we have the -- well, we do, but what people know is this printed version that margaret smith included in her portrait, or if you will, the first biography of dolley madison in 1834.

i think that was a spin or a public relations campaign, which is why we have to treat it as that. that's why i say that her letter in december of 1814, to me, is better evidence than this famous letter school children still read. >> in the washington, d.c. tour guide. there's quite a few tour guides here. i have a question. this is not been mentioned at all. i understood, i learned that she not only saved the wonderful portrait of george washington, but she also saved her portrait. was that saved at the same time? i haven't heard nobody mention that. thank you. >> i have no evidence of that what so ever. i would put that down to rumor

and conjecture. i absolutely don't know. it's part of the urban legend is she saved the state papers, but steve saved them. he worked in the state department. so, there was a famous, reasonably famous picture done in the early 19th century about the macedonian. who mentioned that? dolley madison has perhaps trampled on it. we have no evidence of that, either. but the portrait shows her trampling on the flag and it shows james madison at the

dinner and in 1840s, when those who were around during the war are trying to preserve what they consider accurate memory, edward coles, her husband and james madison's secretary said james madison wasn't there. dolley was there standing with edwa edward coles. you can find that picture. 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. yes, okay. i stand corrected. >> when i first heard your talk and you quoted the original letter of dolley madison, there was the phrase cabinet papers. could it be -- now, do you know what she meant? could it be that there were notes of cabinet meetings? >> could. >> that are different than the bill of rights and constitution and declaration of independence? >> exactly. there was a paper in the white house history about stephen pleasanton that i haven't read yet, but we should probably all read that. >> there is an article by jesse

craps in our hand out on saving the records during the war of 1812. >> isn't there something also in the white house historical society? >> i don't know. >> so, it says here, this is a copy of her letter from the 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. so, it may be that stephen pleasanton took the state department papers but other papers needed to be saved in a cabinet. she did not say anything beyond that. there's no evidence she actually did that. 20 years later, i don't -- i think we need to take it as a grain of salt and not worry too much. what we really needññ to understand is what dolley madison was trying to achieve for herself and her husband. >> -- the second floor of the white house. papers and a statement in another building in town. the state department in the ground. >> pleasanton took them from the

building and she stuffed what she could into these trunks. was it a cabinet? >> a cabinet room. >> we have it here on the authority that interprets this. it makes sense. she took what was from the white house or as much as she could take on her husband's instructio instructions. what i'm trying to say is, did she? we know she said she did and maybe she did. i'm not saying she didn't. i'm saying we don't have conclusive evidence that she did. so, whether that kind of conclusive evidence is important to you as a citizen, as an interpreter, as a historian, a journalist, you know, i'm a documentary editor.

i stand corrected by ken boling and i should actually add that into a note that specifies it for the dolley madison digital edition, but we only know what we know. >> we are out of time. >> okay. >> may i ask