>> the royal navy expanded during the french revolutionary/napoleonic wars. between 1793 and 1812 significantly. its manpower needs went from 36,000 in 17923 to close to 150,000 in 1812. the royal navy was chronically undermanned. and the royal navy claimed a right to reclaim british subjects. to require them to serve in the royal navy. now, at the same time that the royal navy was expanding and needed all the manpower it could get, our trade was flourishing and expanding. we needed all the experienced seamen we could get, and we started employing british tars. it was very easy to recruit them, because the pay, the working conditions were much better on american merchant vessels than the royal navy. so the royal navy reserved the right to stop american merchant vessels on the high seas, muster the crew, inspect the crewmen, and remove those who were deemed to be british subjects. now, the problem with this was, first of all, it was very difficult to tell the difference between a u.s. citizen and a british subject. the differences in language and the like was

in fact, the young napoleon established an emotional bond. long before this bonding business got started, you know, the guy that sells me gas says we are really bonding now, aren't we? not really. i just like the coffee, you know? the gas is okay, but the coffee's better. well, but this was a bond. just like this. this loyalty to their first commander would lead the veterans of the army of the potomac to erect this striking monument on some of the same ground where they drilled endlessly in the late part of 1861. this is where he organized those soldiers, where he sought those soldiers, where he molded them in the image that he had for his army. this loyalty to their first commander would only grow even as he found it harder and harder to do the things he wanted to do when he wanted to do them. because there was another actor, in fact, several. one being the commander in chief and the other being the commanding general of the army at that time winfield scott. and mcclellan became so frustrated late in 1861 with having to submit everything by

probably between 1803, when the napoleonic wars began in 1812 it was 6,000. that was the number bantied about on the eve of the war of 1812. i actually think that number is a pretty good estimate. >> thank you very much. a quick one, do we have a handle on the number of casualties and wounded on each side? >> very, very difficult to get at. the official figures for the united states were something like 2,300 killed, and 4,500 wounded. but based on statistical work that i've done, i think the u.s. probably sustained about 20,000 deaths. and that's because half a million militia served, sometimes for a couple of hours, sometimes for a couple of days, sometimes for three months, occasionally for six months. we don't know how many of those milit militia went home and died. but my estimate, if you put all the deaths together that i think probably occurred, i think probably 20,000 americans perished, probably 10,000 british and canadians, and probably 7,500 indians. as a proportion of their population, the indians suffered the heaviest casualties. but these are est

napoleon certainly would not have been a burke favorite. you look at the french revolution and you look at the american revolution, and you see the difference. french tore it all down. in today's they threw the baby out with the bath water. tore it all down. started over. without great result. that is particularly an appropriate examination for today. let's look at a series of revolutions, the glorious revolution we talked about. pretty easy. little bloodshed, shuffled one king to france and reasonably happy frame of mind and picked a new one with the proper blood lines and turned out to be just fine. the glorious revolution, the french revolution. the american revolution, we talked, a little comparison between the three of those and i want you to add three more upheavals to your thoughts. the russian revolution, pretty well tracks the french with even worse results. add the russian revolution and how burkein that was and then there is two others i want you to think about. would you put the civil war, the war between the states, not defend

probably between 1803 when the napoleonic wars began. that was a number on the eve of the war and i think that number is pretty good estimate. >> thank you very much. a quick one. do we have a handle on the number of casualties and wounded on each side? >> very, very difficult to get at. the official figures for the united states were something like 2300 killed and 4500 wound. based on statistical work i have done, the u.s. probably sustained about 20,000 deaths. a half million militia served for a couple of hours or sometimes for a couple of days and sometimes for three months. occasionally months. we don't know how many of those militia got a camp disease and went home and died. my estimate if you put all of the dust that probably occurred, i think probably 20,000 americans perished and 10,000 british and canadians and 7500 indians. a proportion of the population the indians suffered the heaviest. these are estimates. we don't know. >> did we do anything special for the veterans like benefits or aid or anything like that. >> the bounty

well, napoleon dies at st. helena, and the empire, well, there's that here, and if you ever go out east into alabama, there's a place called demopolis, which was founded by the french emigres. that was to be the foundation of napoleon's empire here in north america, and it doesn't play out. in the aftermath of the war of 1812, this border land between louisiana and texas is a hotly contested area. and one of my favorite characters in all of american history -- it's not john smith -- latour. how many of you guys have heard of latour? my wife has. she's lived with me all these years. latour is kind of these enigmatic figures. he's lived in the shadow of the american history. he's a frenchman, as can you tell by the name. he makes it to louisiana in 1803, and he's an architect. he's an engineer. he had trained as a military engineer. well, by the time of the war of 1812, he's a having a hard time making ends meet. so he joins andrew jackson to fight in this war of 1812. and, in fact, he is the person who designed

british independence was a risk not from us, but from napoleonic france. if napoleon had succeeded in defeating and occupying great britain, that would have been the end. canada would be part of the united states today rather than an independent nation. and the indian tribes fighting on both sides also were fighting for their independence, and it really didn't matter which side they were on, they lost their independence. so ironically, the united states was the only belligerent in this war whose independence was not at risk. number three, the militia and the united states and canada played a central role in the war. this is the great militia myth. it has been at least traditionally very popular in canada, and in the united states. canadians want to believe that it was their own that defended against those american invasions. that they didn't need to depend on british regulars or their indian allies. and as a myth, it became very useful once canada became independent, because they felt they didn't have to spend any money on defense, if they got in trouble w

so napoleon knew that. napoleon said he wanted lucky generals. he didn't want princeton-educated generals, he wants lucky generals. and luck does matter. you can't count on it, but some people have better luck than others. it's just the way it breaks. and lee had a run of really bad luck that compounded the mistakes he made as a commander. now, robert e. lee is a brilliant commander. in 1864 in the overland campaign of virginia, his fighting usually outnumbered two to one. his most brilliant fighting is, actually, then against mead with grant breathing down his neck, and he performs miracles. but it's ugly. it's modern trench warfare. it's brutal, it's savage fighting. it doesn't have the picturesque nature of picket's charge. so lee, i think, doesn't get full credit for that incredible performance, his fine finest performance in may and june of 1864. just as mead, mead's finest hour after gettysburg comes in the autumn of 863. 1863. now, the telegraph is a play -- mead's so close to washington, he's getting orders from until grant comes east, ha

it contributed to napoleon and to sell louisiana to the united states in 1803. so the haitian revolution plays an important role, but well before the war of 1812. >> we enjoyed your talk tremendously, but in reference to the destruction of york and the destruction of washington, are they indeed connected? >> conventional wisdom is that when the united states invaded and occupied york, which is now toronto in canada, on april 27th, 1813, because we burned the public buildings there, the british retaliated by burning the public buildings in washington. but don grace has argued and i think this is probably true, that it's more likely the british were retaliating for later burnings american troops did when we burned st. david's dover, the settlements around dover. i think don graves is probably right that that played a greater role in the british decision to burn the public buildings in washington. but the evidence really isn't that conclusive and the british had every right to burn those public buildings. in war, you have every right to burn any public property bel

they were trying to win a war in europe against napoleonic france. every policy that encroached upon our rights, once the war was over, the policies end. as i see it, our independence was never at risk. now, ironically the independence of every other belligerent was at risk. british independence was at risk not from us, but france. if napoleon succeeded in invading and occupying, that would have been the end of independence. canadian independence was at risk. if we conquered canada, that would have been the end. it would be part of the us today rather than an independent nation. and the indian tribes were also fighting for their independence and it didn't matter which side they were on. they lost their independence. the united states was the only belligerent in the war whose independence was not at risk. number three, the militia in the united states and canada played a central in the war. this is the great myth. it has been at least traditionally very popular in canada and in the united states. canadians want to believe it was their own that defende

washington intersects the early career of napoleon. napoleon is just starting. washington dies in 1799 so they overlap. their careers overlapped. when napoleon was on st. helena after it had all come to smash he was saying over his dinner table, expect me to become another washington kind of bitterly. washington chose to do what he did so he doesn't leave a shattered dynasty -- there's a great by another frenchman, diplomat and a poet, great enemy of napoleon and he spent some time and america and he said travel through the forest where washington's soared shown what he find, a world. he is riding with napoleon in mind and all his battles. great battles, great victories. a world. >> host: that from "founding father: rediscovering george washington" richard brookhiser writes fatherhood in any society understand it is a result of training and active will. a man who would be fodder in name as well as fact must go beyond what is merely national. of father is a man who follows through. this is why it was particularly appropriate that washington came to be known as th

napoleon does. they all think they're accomplishing this and really it fails and ends up being something over here. the heroes of those books are the american people. and you have to read them carefully to get that, because he is a very subtle writer. but that is really the -- that's who is the direction -- that's the direction this whole story takes and it's very interesting that this kind of -- this bitter, proud, acerbic, unhappy heir to three generations of history, he sides with the american people when it comes down to it. >> host: have you ever had a discussion about the adams family with david mccullough? >> guest: i've one into david on the book history circuit. the one encounter we had -- this is back in washington years ago, like maybe ten years ago, and washington and lee university in virginia -- they were having an alumni program in the summer so they invited david mccullough to open it up for the keynote presentation and then there were going to be seminars and whatnot for the alumni,

. >> who is the exponent of napoleonic strategy? the chapter you read before that? it's lee. so grant wants to destroy -- and i want you to understand this. when he says a strategy of annihilation, he's not meaning a battle. he's meaning in this case he's basically saying the there are other aways of achieving the objective. generally, especially the objective is far less costly. what's the other thing that hasn't been put up here and involves this issue of noncombat tans? >> supplies. >> yes. >> all right. attacks on -- and how do you do that? let's not sugar coat it. >> you attack fields. >> yeah. you move through the countryside. you take what you can consume. but why do you also need to do that? you have to feed your army. and what's the alternative? what's mccullen's alternative to feeding your army? you don't have to take stuff from civilians to feed the army. the american military doesn't do that nowadays. yeah, you have to live off extended lines of supply. or you can pay people. confederates do this in gettysburg. they give people vouchers and get paid in confederate

what helps with napoleon? what big country does he invade? russia. it's the same. it's too big. you get more and more worn down and that's potentially a problem that can be used against the federals. who repeats professor lud will talk about this a lot. who repeats the french error in russia? nazis. >> it was actually the disadvantage to the confederates that they picked washington, not washington, richmond as their capital and not something further south. >> that is problematic, and your readings don't have, richmond is chosen probably because virginia is so important. it's the home state of so many presidents, including washington. virginia is var large in terms of population. richmond has the iron work, which is one of the few centers of confederate industries, so it's of extraordinary political importance and that's one of the reasons why it sort of seals the deal. in retro spect, was it really such a good idea? no. but everyone early on thought the war would be short and weren't thinking these things through. >> going back to the whole size issue, i mean, i'm sure that the

napoleon had to launch a political campaign where people will be requested to pledge that they will co-opted this legislation, they will vote for it without amendment. we will try to move his bill through the process, and if they do this, they will not run for office again. tavis: why would anybody on capitol hill sign that? a doctor because of their challengers signs it, they can say the refused to pledge that you won't take bribes, you want cash yen, and you will not come home. and you will not pass laws that don't apply to you. you were saying to us that you are so imperious and arrogant, you will take bribes, cash yen, do all these things? why would anybody vote for you? it gives the challenger is a weapon of the immense power. a lot of them will sign onto it, they will hate it, but america is sick of this. i have yet to encounter anybody outside of washington that things that any of these things make sense. everybody understands this. tavis: i take your point and i have had counter conversations about super pacs, where obama said he wasn't going to do this, chastised the supreme court,

. >> i get that napoleon thing. thanks for joining us. >> who wants to be a

he'll go that far and eventually he'll go to france and have a biography of napoleon and there he died but his wife became a very pitiful figure, pretty dependent upon drugs and things and died a pauper, but lee and his other brother charles carter, carter lee spent a lot of times trying to figure out what they could possibly do for their mother. they ended up sending her money, but it was never enough and that was black horse harry, and he was the one who had literally lost the farm. it was sold and eventually came to be betsy mccarty who was the sister of black horse harry's wife and she eventually was -- she, for 50 years, was the mistress of stratford. >> thank you so much. [ applause ] >> folks, we are madly counting the ballots in the back. we will give the television audience just a few minutes with emory. rather than us taking a break, by the time everybody gets up and walks out and walks back in, why don't you talk amongst yourselves for just a few minutes. >> live on american history tv on c-span3. as you may have heard the folks at the museum of the confederacy counting the

. >> i get that napoleon thing. thanks for joining us. >> who wants to be a millionaire is next.

general, i'm afraid that your man little napoleon, george mcclellan came in last. he had only 12 votes. [ inaudible ] jim macpherson. instead of saying damn, the torpedos, he might have said full speed ahead and he came second to last at 13 votes. >> david blight, your manfred bailey otherwise known as frederick douglas came in right in the middle with 20 votes. bob cribbings, hero, and he had 25 votes and i am here to pronounce that robert e. lee with 71 votes was promoted from the king of spades to the ace of spades. robert e. lee is the man of year for 1862, and i'd like to thank all of you for coming and please get home safely. >> so the winner at the library in virginia in richmond for person of the year is the selection of robert e. lee as person of the year 1862. aga again, the nominees today were from robert krick, who is the chief historian of fredericksburg for 30 years, david blight of yale nominated frederick douglas who came in third, nominated by james macpherson came in first and he was dead last in the voting in virginia and we congratulate professo

that's not lee's phrase, but i think napoleon said it. but i associate it with t. harry williams in any event. unless we reverse the way the world works, the stronger side is going to win the war. and so lee set about trying to reverse the way the world works. to be the stronger side in where it counted to destroy an enemy army. so, in the wake of the seven pines, lee comes to command. now, realize robert e. lee in the mexican war where he is the finest soldier scott ever saw on the field really didn't have a command. he was on scott's staff. lee has never commanded anything more than two companies of marines at harper's ferry on act 16th, 1859, when they stormed the fire engine house and captured five rebels commanded by john brown. harper's ferry, 1859. now, maybe commanding two companies of marines is all you need. the marines contend that way anyway. but here is lee confronting 105,000 yankees who are in the suburbs of richmond. and what did he do? he set his men to work digging trenches, field fortifications. and so this man who had been called granny lee, the

they-- >> and because you're partly addressing this issue and that would be like me saying, three napoleons tonight and-- we need to do far more dramatic, or talking around the edges is not doing anything. >> so i won't disagree with that you on that, but the way to solve that problem is to eliminate union rights would not be my approach to solving that problem. >> and it's not saying that we're addressing the issue of the union power. and the wages in this country are stagnant and not risen in real term since 1973. corporates profits are staggeringly high, why are so we so concerned about the wages of union workers when the corporate profits are doing so well, and why are we hammering the unions. >> were you at all concerned, ben, when boeing was paying hell for wanting to-- >> very, very, like that, that was the nlrb counsel did there was an outrage. >> that's what we were seeing more of. >> it's an outrage, but as far as union members getting good wages, good for the union members, i say. and anyway, enjoy them while they last, union members, they won't last. >> you're a riddle wrapped i

. >> remember, this is at odds with the napoleonic philosophy where the state is the author of the rights. the state is not the author of the rights. i mean, man has certain inherent rights given to him by god, and those rights become part of the tradition. that's a major difference. legal and political rights become organized in a tradition. it's that legal tradition, that kind of reorganizes them. let's take some questions from you all here. questions please. go ahead. >> you talked about how we have a government set up to have gradual change over time, said to be slowly progressive. you think this slow progression the past 150 years has taken us too far away from our roots and now we're kind of snowballing into a time of state progression? >> i think any form of government that is, in fact, democratic, has within it the seeds of the possibility that you're going to go too far. and i think that's where we are. i don't think it's -- if we are -- if we're true to burke, we're not going to go too far. we're going to realize that we can't outstrip tradition, history and experience. but clea

a more fulsome understanding of the art of war as had been explained by prince chamonix of the napoleonic school. general lee later said after three or four changes in the commander of the army of the potomac, i fear that they will eventually appoint someone in command that i don't under. thank you so much. >> okay, gang, it's quarter of three. let's take 15 minutes and let's be in your seats ready to go at 3:00. >> live coverage from the library of virginia of a discussion on the person of the year 1862. five historians presenting their case and nominating individuals for person of the year 1862. we have heard from four of the historians so far and here are the nominations, robert crick nominated, thomas stonewall jackson. robert crick was the former head of fredericksburg battlefield. we heard from david blithe who dominated frederick douglass. james mcpherson nominated a miller david farragut and you heard the nomination of george b. mcclellan. we're going to open up our phone lines for your thoughts and your comments and questions about the day and hear your comments for john mountcas

beginning the french revolution and very soon series of revolutionary wars which then become napoleonic wars that won't end until waterloo. so the early republic exists in the shadow of a world war that is longer than world war's i and ii put together, as violent as either of them and ideological as the cold war. and washington's adviser take sides on in this conflict. early on, hamilton has a conversation with the british agent and tells him we think english -- united states and britain. what he means by that we are traditional trading partners and this has been good for both of us. let's try to keep this going despite our former conflicts. jefferson and madison are lifelong friends and stick with the french revolution right through the reign of terror. when jeff are son is secretary of state he writes to the american in paris and says rather than that the revolution should fail i would have seen half the earth devastated. this is how passionate he is about the french revolution. now how serious were these disagreements of opinion? they were serious enough that people killed each other

. >> who is the exponent of the napoleonic strategy, the chapter you read before that in the book? it's lee. so, grant wants to destroy -- and i want you to understand this because when wigley says a battle of -- a strategy of annihilation, he's not means necessarily the battle. he's meaning, in this case he's basically saying there are other ways of achieving that objective which are more effective and generally especially the option of maneuver leading to seizure are less costly. what's the other thing that we put up -- that hasn't been put up here and involves noncombatives. >> supplies. >> attacks on -- how do you do that? let's not sugar coat it. >> you attack fields, villages. >> it is you move through the countryside, you take what you can consume, but you also -- why do you need to do that? you have to feed your army. and what's the alternative, though. what is mcclellan's alternative. you don't have to take stuff. the american military doesn't do that now a days. yeah. you have to live off extended lines of supply. or even do things like you can even pay people. i mean, th

year mark over with a country star at the last lympics but a couple of new starlets in the form of napoleon and. have since emerged showing at least in the world and european championships. it's much tougher physically this time around because in the last olympics i only participated in the team competition and now i will also be performing in the duets competition it's a more individual event and it's of course very prestigious and because of that it's more than double the work the discipline requires great strength injurious flexibility and of course precise timing as well as exceptional breath control upside down underwater so training is tough and constant and lengthy girls can train for literally half a day in order to ensure they need to but problem level of fitness. without a doubt the most difficult aspect is. with the physical demands we've got to do at repetitions in the morning and to team repetitions in the evening so it's quite difficult to keep yourself in shape mentally it's also tough yes the olympics are the goal but you try not to think about that because it just becomes t

it is also -- notable that eisenhower is the only president since napoleon began in the '30s whose approval rating never dropped below 50%. they chalked it up to a war hero. i wonder if his receipt sans about not overexposing himself to the public is not part story. often when -- advisers would try to persuade him to go on tv or make some high-profile speech eisenhower would say, for example, one occasion, quote, i keep telling you fellows i don't like to do this sort of thing. i can think of nothing more boring for the american public ton have to sit in their living rooms for a whole half hour looking at my face on their television screens. i don't think the people want to be listening to a roosevelt sounding as if he were one of the apostles or partisan yipping of a truman. another occasion he pushed back by saying what's it that needs to be said? i'm not going to go out there just to listen to my tongue clatter and then finally on one occasion when he did yield he said all right. i'm not going to talk more than 20 minutes. the author also notes eisenhower's legendary for his performance

what helps napoleon? what big country does he invade? russia. it is the same issue. too big. your lines of supply are further and further expend tended. you get warn down and it is potentially a problem it use again the federals. professor love will talk about this a lot. who repeats the french error in russia? the nazis. >> do you think it was actually disadvantage of the confederates they picked washington as the captain dash not washington, british and not something farther south. >> that is problematic, but i will point out and it is not -- richmond is chosen probably because virginia is so important. virginia is the home state of so many american presidents including washington. virginia is very large in terms of population. richmond has the iron works, one of the few centers of confederate and it is seal the deal to some degree, they move the capital to richmond. in retrospect was it really a good idea, no, but everyone early on thought the war would be short and they weren't thinking these things through. >> going back to the whole size issue, i am sure that the russia

mean the economy has been poor i mean in fact in the eighteenth century you know you small invited napoleon to to help out with the economy so you know the way this is like history repeating itself . ok ok boring if i can go here again i mean i mean the thing is is that you know this is a democratic process and plain i mean no and i'll agree with you on the mean if you couldn't win then why don't you go out in when it looks like the brotherhood has a very good chance of doing then i agree with the below mean then you could have an enormous amount of responsibility on your hands ok if you fix the economy to create jobs i mean in that way it is a gamble. it's true it's true that it is a gamble on the core of the brotherhood i mean egypt's egypt's economy is in dire straits there are. forty percent of egyptians live almost into dollars a day and a million and a half babies are born in egypt every year. there's a brotherhood have answers to these problems and i think it does on the other hand if if if you or i or the brotherhood and we waited eight decades to seize power i don't think we would

the seizure of what was known as strategic points by the napoleonic scholars of the day would enable him to grab the initiative and force the confederates to respond to his initiatives. and what he laid out then was a giant flanking attack. not a headlong assault from washington right down the telegraph road along the line of richmond, fredericksburg railroad to richmond. no. no, he would go down the chesapeake bay after touching base at fortress monroe in hampton which never, ever surrendered to the confederates, his plan was then to move up to the rappahannock and then move inland. cutting off joe johnston's forces up there around manassas and centreville. he said he'd need 140,000 soldiers to do that and obviously priority on navy assets to move them down through the bay to virginia. well, that concept troubled lincoln and his newly appointed secretary of war edwin stanton. it appeared to them that the army at the potomac could do a better job of protecting washington and defeating the confederate forces in virginia by attacking headlong into manassas and clean up those camps and