killed or by their wounds. in other words, they died as a direct result of combat in the war. i did some calculations, and i found that in fact about 10% more of the army died of disease, sickness, and other causes that are not directly related to battle. they were simply a product of the very unhealthy nature of military camps, the inability to provide decent sanitation, these sorts of things, which diseases, if they got into an arm camp, they could go through and take a very heavy toll on life substantially more men died as a result of disease, sickness. and then there's a bit of colateral damage that occurs that millyisha die as a result of the british raids of the sort we've been talking about. we might estimate that 15,000, 16,000 americans died one way or another as a result of the war of 1812. the indians suffered i think proportionately higher percentage of lossesle we don't know precisely, because we don't have good figures for indian population, but of course the numbers that the indians had, braying from a vast smaller demographic base, so the impact of heavy losses is going to be much greater proportionately. so the indians lost a great many warriors, particularly, but also women and children, from starvation as a result of the war. that made it all the easier for americans after 1815 to remove some of these people. ship them further west. this did facilitate american expansion across the continent. on top of that, i suppose been can throw it property damages as a result of british raids. i guess it's probably impossible to put a precise is a figure. i think it's impossible to put a figure on that. but if we say that human damage is necessarily the greatest damage that any war inflicts, that is what it looks like i think on the american side. i don't think we can do much better than that given or current state of knowledge. >> question sort of a counter factual situation, if the british prevail, does the treaty of gent get rewritten? >> the answer to that is no, emphatically. this is a myth that is perpetuated by books, particularly books about andrew jackson, who want to said jackson saved the nation at the battle of new orleans. the answer, why it is no, the chronology is quite forward. the treaty was signed on the 24th of december 1814. it was ratified -- and now according to the law of nations, a treaty cannot come into effect until both governments, the principals of the diplomats who have been doing the negotiation have ratified it. the british government ratified the treaty of gent on the 28th of december, before they send it across the atlanta tick. the battle of new orleans was fought on the 8th of january 1815. the news of the battle and the treaty don't get to washington under early 1815, but the british by ratifying the treaty have said to the americans, we want in war to be over. so under international law, for the war to have continued after the british ratification, the americans -- that would have had to have been an american decision. and nobody in washington in february 1815 said we should throw out this treaty in order to carry on the war. that is a great myth that an -- this is not to say that jackson's victory did not have consequences for american politics, would jackson have become president without that battle? but no, the british had signaled quite clearly that the war was over, that the americans had confronted the choice, we agree with them, we don't agree, they chose to agree. >> in more recent years, the war has been referred to as america's second war for independence. could you comment on that? >> well, this is the word literary critics use is atropy, but it emerges about the time of every -- the first american books on the war of 1812, they start appearing as early as 1816. if you read those books, particularly from 1816 through to the civil war, they all take this line, that america -- and the classic place you find this is 1,000-page book written by a new york journalist called benson j. lawson, probably one of the most widely known as 19th surgery sources, and he says in 1783 we became free from great britain. we did not become independent, because the british did not respect or independence. the proof they did not respect our independence was the way they treated us dural the napoleonic wars, and he interpreted it as a plot to reduce the americans to colonial status again. when the treaty of gent is right afterwards, is the british has given up. america finally becomes not only free but independent. that's the sort of the assumption behind the notion that the war of 1812 was necessary to complete the independence that was supposedly won between 1776 and 1783. it's going to take another ward to vindicate and consolidate that independence. that's the dominant myth it's still there in 20th century, account -- next day 1 of a symposium marking the 200th anniversary of the burning of washington, d.c. during the war of 1812. first andrew lambert on the naval aspects, then catherine agor, author of "a perfect union." that's followed by alan taylor talking about his book the civil war of 1812. add later remarks by editor of the james madison papers at the university of virginia. coming up, day 1 of a symposium on the british burning of washington and the war of 1812, hosted by the white house historical association, the u.s. capitol historical society, and james madison's mount peelier. next, andrew lamb better, author of challenge, britain against america in the naval war of 1812. this is 45 minutes. my name is stewart mclauren. i'm the president of the white house historical association, where we are privileged to convene today for in significant event. we're honored to have two members of the board of director of the white house historical association, the honest rachelle ann scott and mr. knight kiplinger. we're honored to have mr. william allman, the curator of the white house. this symposium commemorates the bicentennial of one of america's critical yell overlooked conflicts. with the gathering of these extraordinary scholars and experts in the history field. the next two days are sure to educate, inspire and enhance our understanding of the war of 1812. the mission echos the symposium goal of echoing the public, and we are so pleased to host this day and a half of symposium here at the association's david m. reuben stein center for the study of white house history. this event could not be possible without the partners and the support of our co-sponsors, the united states capitol historical society and james madison's montpelier. we thank these two wonderful partners for being with us today, and the contributions they have made to make this a successful event. we would also like to extend a special word of thanks to the kem art, who generously underwrote a significant portion of today's symposium. if you are with us tonight, you'll receive a specially commissioned gift. the association is grateful for the support and association we've had with them for 34 years in the production of our white house christmas ornament. this began in 1981, and is a very significant part of what we do, given that the proceeds from the sale of this ornament go to support our work with the white house. please be sure to take a moment to visit our shop which is right across the courtyard behind you as well as online at white househistory.org to obtain the 2014 ornaments which honors president warren g. harding. we welcome you to hear these 14 prestigious presenters, share their work and guide us through one of the most significant periods in our history. to begin our very full afternoon program, it is my pleasure to welcome cat emhoff, president and ceo of james madison's montpelier to introduce our presenters. >> good afternoon. it is so wonderful to be here. i also wanted to say our board chair, greg may, joins us as well as many board members. i hope you get a chance to meet some of our leadership. james madison's montpelier could not be pleased than to help sponsor the next two days. declaring war, congress and the president exercise powers that were granted to them by the u.s. constitution. for our young country, only three decades removed from the first war of independence, the war of 1812 tested many of the ideas in the constitution, and it called upon madison to abide by the limitations of powers that he had worked so hard to institute. as we commemorate the sobering events of 1814, this panel will be shedding like on the new scholarship and ideas about the oorgeens and the outcomes of the war. fittingly i love the fact that we begin with a discussion of the british context of the war. i am pleased to welcome to the podium dr. andrew lambert. in addition to writing about british strategy and technology, he's the author of an award-winning 2012 volume on the war titled "the challenge, britain against america in the naval war of 1812 just and it was just honored with the anderson award. so join me in welcoming dr. lambert to the podium. >> thank you very much for that extremely kind introduction. award of a medal for writing a book about the war of 1812 is somewhat ironic back home, because in all honesty we don't know it happened. it's a great honor to be here, which my thanks must go to the team at the historical association and all those who managed to put this splendid event together. it's important i think 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 bigger picture. really my job this afternoon is to situate the war of 1812 in world history and to put that relationship between britain and america and the wider world. the war of 1812 posed serious problems for governments on both sides of the atlantic. in the united states, president james madison's decision for war split the country. the federalist northeast opposed a conflict that would damage the economic interests, while the republican centers south and west welcomed it as an opportunity for territorial expansion and the address of other significant internal issues. new ofs war had reached -- as the prime minister had just been shot in the house of commons and his replacement, lord liverpool was not thought to be destined for a long term in office. in fact he would last 15 years as prime minister, but nobody knew that at the time. he was not thought to be a great leader an inspiring figure, he was not with command of rhetoric, or indeed a big public persona. but he turned out to be a very good manager of the cabinet at the time when the british needed cabinet as the king was sliding into a permanent madness and his regent, his son, george iv made a poor sharing on the national, let aknown the international stage. we need a leader who made good effective use of the resources at hand. lord liverpool turned out to be that man. the british were in the tenth year of a conflict with napoleon bonaparte. the war had broken out in early 1803. the issues are many and various, but the british had been wages war against the greatest warrior in modern history for a deck kay. they had managed not to lose, partly because they live on an island. british minister had little reason for optimism that the war would end well. the last great british victory had been the battle of trafalgar, and since then they had hung around the margins of europe, annoying france, and hoping the rest of europe would see that being ruled by france would be a bad idea. they were not woishd about the declaration of war. the united states was then a small country, it had limited resources, and it had no great reputation for having a large and powerful army or instead a tick leerily large navy, either. what they were worried about was the additional strain on the already seriously overstretched resources. the louisiana purchase is transformational for the united states. it turns 'kurn which looks to the atlantic which one that starts to look to the rest of the continent. not jest west, but north and south as well. the war between britain and america was a consequence of the anglo -- it was a strategy of blockading europe with extreme measures that brought on the clash with the united states. after of destruction of his navy a trafalgar, napoleon had instituted a total war against britain. the strategy was to exclude british trade from europe and to try to bankrupt the british. napoleon understood the bade of their power was trade and money. in napoleon could break the british economy, britain would surrender. his continental system would harness the european consist innocent in a war against britain. they could exclude all british trade from europe on penalty the seizure and destruction. the famous orders in council did the exact reverse. so they had to, coffee is one of the things they missed. the british counter-blockade cut out of, and threatened america's economic development. from 1803 to 1812, american shippers, merchants and traders made a lot of money being the last neutral carrier, the last country that could carry good from the french west indies through europe through the british blockade. they were also trading with the british, and 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 court thought napoleon was less -- or at least less dangerous to their interests. the continental system was beginning to drou the economies of our states. napoleon protected france by asset stripping all of the conquered territories. the 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 the british market. inside the continental system, 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. basically most of the landowners in russia relied on selling goods to the british to pay their bills. so the czar decided that bankruptcy and death was slightly less bad than being invaded by napoleon, but only slightly. the british having yet seen the future. 1811, the long running interchains of arguments at sea reached a high point with the the little belt is the small one with the union flag, a case of mistaken identity, according to commodore rogers, but the british made little of it. they were far too busy doing other things. mr. madison's war depending on the french winning. if russia chaps, napoleon is utterly dominant, what possible hope do the british have with carrying on? it will be possible then to negotiate with them on a range of issues. but the british wouldn't surrender to napoleon. the main british army was fighting successfully in spain under the duke of wellton. the royal navy was protecting global trade. the british simply had no spare ships, men or money to fight a war with anybody else. indeed during the war of 1812, the british military effort was rarely more than 7% of the land and sea forces. they simply didn't have any more to spare. it wasn't a case of choice. that's all there was. in 1812 and 1813, the british strategy is largely reactive. the americans had the initiative, they chose where to fight and how to fight. as we know the united states opened the conflict with what should have a three-pronged offensive into what is now canada. and a surge of warships and private tiers to cut britain's economic lifelines. the canadians frontier became the main military theater. for three years heavily outnumbered british -- defended the border. to meet these attacks, the british shifted some troops, but they came from the west indies, not from europe. the british moved no soldiers in the european theater until after the napoleonic conflict. as long as napoleon remained in power, british strategy would be defensive. this left the madison administration with an alternative strategy, the wrecking of britain's economic. the strategy that relied on private earring, the united states navy was too small to do this. it needed the assistance of a large number of privately owned and operated licensed predators. the british response to the american declaration of war, there is the canadian frontier, was the appointment of vie admirable warren siege here with his sash on. a diplomat, highly successful naval operator. he was send to command the entire theater with powers to negotiate an armistice and early return to the status two. that was what the british wanted. are the americans serious about this war. are they not prepared to think about this? warren's job was to do everything but wage war under he knew the americans were absolutely determined on fighting. and he would be 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 had 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, somebody to be brock aded and economically ruined. initially, shortage of ships and limited rules of engagement hampered war are warren's business. even in late 1812, he began the difficult job of capturing and incar rating the american private ear fleet. the privateeer, only some 5 1/2 months after declare action war, did he -- he was then tasked with setting up a effect will you effective convoy system to product all the system transiting from the caribbean and from british north america into british ports. by this stage, over 150 british merchant ships had already been captured and tlchs money to be made in privateeering, his masters in london underestimating the scale of the privateer threat send him 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 constitutional taking garrier in michelle cornier's wonderful picture which -- the garrier was only two thirds of the sigh of the convulsion constitution" and rather less than two thirds of the crew. if the american captain had -- but that's not the story that appeared in the republican newspapers. the second battle was rather embarrassing, the british captain was both blind and a fool, but the third frigate captured put up a credible fight. the two defeats were neither dishonorable nor necessarily disadvantageous. the british quickly got their crew back. the one thing they were short of was sailors, as we now from the prewar pressment, instead of carrying on to destroy merchant ships, the american ships had to go home for repairs. so at the cost of glory, the americans had ruined their mission. as said, these railroad strategically irrelevant victory, but it does provide the american government with useful propagan propaganda. the british government belatedly ordered general reprisals against the united states on the 13th of october, 1812, news that didn't reach the new world under the end of november. the british had read the division list of congress. they knew who vote fold war and who didn't. the british blockaded you and attacked you, if your congressman didn't vote for war, the british left you alone. the british understood the best way to defeat the enemy was divide and conquer, now overwhelm. the british is a small country. we have no historic of overwhelming anybody. american food supplies also, the good people of vermont critically this had been a golden eight months in which it was possible to continue rating both peace and war at the same time. ultimately this would be the divisionive at the bankrupt the state and leave it unable to raise -- quite, the united states would run out of money, and the sin knews are money, money, and more money. when you run out of that, you have to stop fighting. there's a constitution -- unlike the picture, this of course is by a british artist and gets the scales of the ship, well -- that's actually not quite as accurate as it might be. the java was a little bigger than that, but it looks like the "constitution" is shooting at a rowing boat. it happened on the 7th of september, the battle of boradino, enough to write a vast sim phonic work to inspire a magnificent novel and bring down a great emperor. in a single field work, more russians died than were killed or died of illness in the whole of the war of 1812 on all sides. this was number on 200,000 men each. the war of 1812 would not be fought by armies of 200,000 men. in fact it wouldn't be fought by 200,000 men all told. on as 1813 began, james madison knew that napoleon had lost, his army was in full retreat, indeed in complete collapse. he had taken the country to the war on -- they lost. now what was going to happen? this also took the pressure on britain and released naval reinforcements from the british fleet in the baltic, a very important fleet, which had been keeping the baltic open for british trade. those ships and key personnel were moved across to the north american station. the british very carefully picked out the right ships and right offices to send, the best men, many of them proteges of nelson, one of whom we will come to. furthermore, with russian trade open, the british didn't need to buy grain from the americans anymore. the russians had plenty of grain. by the summer of 1813, fast british battleships and more numerous fridayates were available to blockade. the 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 then who would arrive in 1813, none would be more famous and more relevant that is george coburn, a man made captain by nelson, one of the -- he was sent over here very specifically to take the offensive on to the american coast and i, quote, accelerate the return of peace. we know what he did. they reinforcements enabled warning to impose a blockade, pinning american sleeps and frigates in boston and new york. so an escort of convoy with a frigate alongside it was safe from american predation. by may 1813, the economic blockade was biting, too, new york the largest american port, producing one war of the national revenue dues was closed. the revenue was drying up. state revenue fell to catastrophic levels. it was impossible to pay for the war. it would have been to paid for on borrowing. american governments stopped failed to sell at sustainable rates, a clear sign that something was fundamentally wrong. the pressure of the blockades was immediately felt. it turned in britain's favor on june 1st, 1813. first the frigates "united states" and "macedonia quags -- and then the "uss chesapeake" was captured by hms shannon. the fact that captain phillip broker, who won the battle, meant that james lawrence, captain of the chesapeake, had picked the wrong enemy. with those three fregalities removed from the list of ships at sea, the naval threat effectively evaporated. and by the end of the war, 6,500 privateer career locked up in south devon. we built it with the french, but ran out of the frenchmen, so we sent the americans there as well. the british still hoped the war would go away. they wanted the americans to say, we're sorry, we'll go back, it was on the table of day one, because that's what the peace treaty was, that's all the british wanted. in 1813, the shannon action got the british quite excited. here is the contemporary cartoon by george crookshank, rather summed up the view of the war. but 1813 was not about america. it was about napoleon. there was another great battle at leipzig. the german empire collapsed, napoleon retreated into france, the writing was on the wall. the british poured money and munitions into europe to defeat napoleon. they did not send men or money to north america. british would have taken status quo ante at any time. in 1813, the coburn raids closed down privateer bases, damaging the property of those who voted for war. at the end of 1813, the economic blockade was stretched all the way up to maine. new england was blockaded, too, this would promote sectional conflict, but british options were very limited. they had a chance to do something they had want to do do for 120 years, to captured northern belgium, the one place you can invade england from. 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, so the idea they had any offensive plans here is untrue. throughout the war, there would be more british troops defending the west independence engines than there were defending canada. the political power of the west indian planters and merchants was far greater. west indian commercial interests saw admiral warren replaced by vice admiral cochran nchts and he too will feature in the war. as peace approached in europe, lord castlewright told the europeans he would not discuss maritime rights at a peace conference. blockade, impressment, and he told americans the same thing. these were the bases of british power. british is a say power, not land power, control of the sea says britain's strong arm. and condemned him to a solitary conflict. once the americans had taken maritime belligerent rights off the agenda, peace could be discussed at gent. s they might as well have had the treaty in britain. is the americans resorted some interesting mechanisms to defeat the royal navy, blow up my hell indeed, you may kid my -- says yankee doodle. not impressed. here is a german cartoon of the downfall of napoleon. he went to the emperor of world, to the emperor of elba. here is the main player in our story. this is the officially commissioned portrait. this is how he wished to be remembered. this isn't accidental. this is a man telling us about himself. he clearly thought this was one of husband more important events. as we know, the occupation of washington and the destruction of the public buildings was a major event, but more important, it sparked a run on the america banks, anybody who had any cash took it out of american banks and put it could canadian banks which paid better and weren't defaulti defaulting. yet neither the destruction of washington or the defeat at plats burg had any serious effect on british policy. the british offered status quo ante, because they just wanted the war to go away. this was not a war they wished to fight. the peace treaty on 1814 rat gent was little more than a recognition of that fact. here is some of coburn's handiwork and here's some more of t the battle of north point, but far more important, the signing of the treaty of gent. by the time the treaty was signed, the united states was in default by 3 million pounds p. 15 million with an outstanding on interest payments. the national debt rose by 200%. there would be two more battles, the battle of new orleans you all heard of, this is the one that's not in the textbooks. the british captured the sandy hook in another action in which both captains fought brilliantly, but the british captain was more brilliant. it's no accident that the headquarters of the navy in royal london is the hms president. it's a direct descendant. you will see four engravings of this battle. this is lord castleroy's map of 1812, not interfering in the settlement. the congress of vienna created a peaceful stable european statement that was stun open for business. that was britain's war aim. in the whole course of 22 years, fighting the french, the british took from the rest of europe two very splaul islands, one in the mediterranean called malta, the other in the north seat, that is britain's entire access of european territory. they gave it all up for peace and stability. and then, of course, napoleon came back, but not for long. he was rapidly arrested by admiral sir henry hotham. when the war's over, the republican party did what you normally do as a political organization, they declared it a great success. the republican party's speech writers and newspaper men celebrated a great arch of victory. three frigate victory. sir walter scott, who understood how to create fabulous stories, realized what the americans were do and rather regretted they hadn't been taught a more severe lesson, but he realized the british weren't prepared to fight a war for teaching lessons. and he also understands that the enduring legacy of 1812 would be not territory, not mar time belligerent rights, but a distinct american culture. the war of 1812 forced the united states to face up to itself and recognize that it wasn't part of something else. it was of itself. it was a country that would have its own culture. it would paint independents own pictures. it would create an american identity, and this war is the spark from which that emerged. the war drove america to acquire a distinctive new world identify, one that privileged landscapes scale and the westward opportunities off are over the narrow confines and dusty histories of europe. perhaps the was the conflict's most appropriate metaphor. thank you very much. [ applause ] we now have a short opportunity for questions and answers. i would be more than happy to do that. please. >> how did american finances recover after the war? was the resumption of trade duties sufficient to refill the treasury? did we undefault on the loan? >> yeah. the economic problems of the united states were ended by the conclusion of peace. it opened up the international money markets to america. it also persuaded american financiers that there was something worth investing in. i've just seen the capital city trashed. you don't believe this is this country is something you want to invest in. so it opens up the domestic taps. it also leads to a massive boom in trade. all of that trade that didn't happen from 1812 to 1815, it happens pretty much as soon as the war ends. news of peace in london prompts every merchant in the whole of the united kingdom to load of -- and it's hurge armada of trade crosses the atlantic, and business booms against. there's then an economic setback, but essential the united states sell able to rebuild its economic activity. so peace is really good for peace it's good for the economy, war is not. a lesson the british had learned many years before. >> yes, have you seen in the called public record -- >> sorry. >> have you seen in the public record office any orders to coburn and ross to burn the public buildings in washington? and the implications being retaliation, question mark. >> thank you very much. this is one of the great questions about what happens in washington. were coburn and ross operating under specific orders to do something as specific as burning the white house? certainly there was a sense that after the occupation of what is now toronto and the destruction of the public buildings there, and in other parts on the niagara front where there had been cross-border destruction of buildings by both sides, that the public buildings of the state that started the war were fame game. and nobody in europe would have thought this was in any way surprising. the whole operation was organized by george coburn. he was the only man among those in command who had been long enough to work out the target and how to get there. the chronology is quite clear. the army with ross and alexander cochran arrives in the chesapeake, and the next morning they set off the pauxant and cross towards bladens burg. he had no but he didn't have specific orders to do it. his boss, alexander cochran, was very supportive. cochran had lost his elder brother in the revolutionary war and harbored some dislie of americans as a consequence. it was a divisive war. there were many on the british side who were old enough to remember that conflict so the memories of the last war were quite raw for many people. you've mentioned the burj of the government buildings, but pamela scott showed me a drawing that i hadn't thought about in this context. a drawing by latrobe in december of 1815 that shows george washington's buildings burned -- ruins of them and a large tavern nearby, near the capital that was also in ruins. ed are one private billing -- is when they shot general ross's horse, the british didn't burn the building. it was part of a terrace, so they pulled it down. they also destroyed the offices of the national intelligence of any sound general and admiral would like to see the press suppressed. george coburns took all the letter cs out of the bock so they couldn't write -- the they compared him frequently with satan, and not to satan's advantage remember that in the aftermath of that there was a tremendous storm, and a lot of damage was done as well, so that may have been storm damage. >> thank you very much for being here. when -- as part of the -- coburn's operation and ross' operation of course there was the squadron under captain gordon which ascend it had potomac river, a rather remarkable adventure in itself. and as they came up and before they engaged fort washington, they sailed by mount vernon. the very symbol of america with george washington. why didn't they just blow up mount vernon? >> thank you very much. tomorrow evening i'm going to be speaking at the masonic hall in alexandria about that very operation. the reason the british didn't me where up mount vernon is because 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 the british some very important lessons about representation. so they didn't burn the building, they stopped and the band came up and they played washington's march in his honor. so the british were not making war on america, they were making war on the american government. and 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 who they believed to be the causes of the war. hence the use of the congressional division list. so george washington is off limits, he's part of the history of britain and america. remember, he's an officer in king george's army first and he's spared. as are almost all public buildings -- private buildings that the british can spare. thank you. one there and one there. why don't you go first. >> at one point was part of the british war aims for concluded the conflict to create some sort of a 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, the secretary of state for war, was also responsible for british colonies. and his view was that it would be a really good idea if we could build some kind of buffer zone between the united states and british north america to reduce the possibility of future conflict. and the native american peoples were seen as an ideal opportunity to do this. his cabinet colleagues disagreement vehemently, they didn't want to spend $10 million a year to improve the border of canada. bathos was outvoted and then the international lawyers started to 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 and at law it would have been almost impossible to have created a territory to give to the native americans. there was simply no framework to do this. european legal systems did not recognize the rights of native peoples. which is how you're able to sweep right west across the whole of the continent, because there was no legal framework for giving them national identity. so it was an idea, it was mooted and it was used as a way of pushing the americans away from talking about rights. the british put something up which they had no intention of trying to execute because it was inchoate, there was no particular form you could give this. it was a kind of line swrrm somewhere noult the northwest but it was never determined what that line was, who was inside it, how it would be policed. so it was a gate negotiating position because it made the americans think they'd won something. but what the british had done is make the americans worry about something which they couldn't care about and in exchange they got maritime rights off the treaty table. so it's a nice way of everybody feeling they've won something but there was no way that this could have been set up. we would have to have agreed, washington and london, that the native american peoples were a nation that they had a national identity rather than being tribal peoples spread across the countryside in a completely different way. >> there's a william charles cartoon -- pair of cartoons, one lauding ball moth ining baltimo other condemning the al sand reeians for provisions the british fleet. i wonder if you could comment on that. >> william charles, the cartoonist who makes fun of the alexandrians was british, but obviously a british republican. his cartoon is very much the republican view of the alexandr alexandrians which was very unpleasant and then he used a cartoon showing the british could be beaten. of course the british weren't beaten at baltimore, they just decided they didn't want it. [ laughter ] if you want to start baltimore, we can do it. there were 20,000 americans dug in in a very strong position at baltimore. british have less than 40,000 ground troops. how are they going to get into baltimore? the british didn't have another army. so if they burned their army up attacked baltimore they had no more troops left. with alexandria, the picture quite clear, john boor, a truly terrible mythic beast has got the citizens of alexandria on their knees with their hair standing up on end as you would if you saw a real minute tour. but city ear saying we have to get out of here before the british show up. of course, they did turn up and tried to stop the british leaving but they failed and british got back after interesting exchanges of fire so it's an important political cartoon but you have to read it as very much a partisan cartoon. it's just like that chesapeake cartoon i showed. it's one side of the argument but it's an internal cartoon. it has no resonance with the british at all. this is the republicans pointing the finger at the federalists saying "you're not patriotic." >> i'd just like that-to-say that the score is now even, the this last week the city of alexandria challenged the royal navy to three sporting events and the city won all three. [ laughter and applause ] hu huzzah! i'm pleased to hear that but the score in frigates in the war was three each. but as the americans only got one of theirs home and the british took all three, i think we got that one on points. thank you very much. [ applause ] here are some highlights for this coming weekend. today live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span the nebraska supreme court will hear oral argument on the keystone xl pipeline. saturday at 6:30, former fcc commissioner michael cox and robert mcdowel. with campaign 2014 gearing up, watch the latest debates on c-span. sunday at noon, debates between kay hagen and her republican opponent tom tillis and from the california governor's race, democratic incumbent jerry boun and republican nominee kneel ca nooek. saturday on book tv's afterwards, mike gonzalez and how he thinks republicans can make gains for the hispanic vote at 10:00 p.m. eastern and sunday at noon, our three-hour conversation and your phone calls with the former chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights, mary francis berry. tonight at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span 3, us a thors and historians talk about the burning of washington during the war of 1812. saturday on real america, the building of the hoover dam. and sunday night at 8:00, the anniversary of president gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon. find our schedule at cspan.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us, send us a tweet at #c 123 or you can e-mail us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now more from the symposium on the british burning of washington, d.c. during the war of 1812 hosted by the white house historical society, the u.s. capitol historical society, and james madison's montpelier. next, catherine algore discusses her book "a perfect union: dolly madison and the creation of the american nation." it's 35 minutes. >> welcome back, everybody for america under fire, mr. madison's war and the burning of washington city. for those of you who may be just joining us. if you have one of these little devices, if you can make sure it's turned off more to the silent mode, that would be fantastic. i have the pleasure of introducing dr. catherine algore and she's going to tackle james madison's other half, some of us might say his better half, dolly madison. catherine has written several books on dolly including "a perfect union: dolly madison and the creation of the american nation" and most recently she edited an important memoir written by dolly madison's niece. catherine is the director f education at the huntington library and professor of history at the university of california riverside. and today she will discuss the republican queen's identity during the war. this time when dolly madison's drawing room and her events became known as squeezes they were so popular. i've also heard that she's going to mention maybe the role of you have? -- snuff in the war of 182012-and look at dolly madi n madison's snuff box at the decatur house. it's on a rare visit to washington, d.c. so go look at her snuff box. with that teaser, please join me welcoming dr. catherine algore. [ applause ] >> thank you so much for that lovely introduction. i'm tempts to say forget about my speech, let's go look at the snuff box, but no, no, no. i'm happy and honored to be here with such a distinguished set of scholars and an even more distinguished and lovely audience. thank you so much to bill and the white house historical association, to the u.s. capitol historical society and, of course, james madison's montpelier for asking me and getting me here and thanks to the huntington library for giving me the day off. the slogan "don't give up the ship" the figure of uncle sam, the star spangled banner, the proliferation of symbols that emerged from the war of 1812 constitutes a paradox. though, as this conference demonstrates, much recent scholarship on the causes, conduct, and legacies of the war has produced fresh insights about the costs and gains of the war, even the combatants. at the time the treaty was signed, americans understood that peace gained them little in policy, international power or territory. so on the one hand, it seems contradictory that such a wealth of symbolism emerged out of such a feckless endeavor. on the other hand, the very futile nature of the war may have precisely accounted for its symbolic booty. the victory that contemporary americans and many later historians claimed was a psychological one. as member of the peace delegation, albert gal tan observed "the war has renewed and reinstated the national feelings and character which the revolution had given and which were daily lessen iing." he said the war made citizens feel more americans. they feel and act more as a nation and i hope the permanency of the union is thereby better secured. so appreciating both sides of this paradox may explain the national energy that took in account of a fairly mundane battle and set it to the tune of an old drinking song and made it a national anthem. some of the most potent images to emerge from the war of 1812 are those of dolly madison facing down the enemy, fleeing the burning capitol, saving the gilbert stewart portrait and otherwise demonstrating heroism under fire. and what i'm arguing to you today is that part of the reason that dolly's american audience seized upon these images, endowing them with a historical heft that would propel them through the centuries, we all know these images, is that they were really a culmination of a process and the process was dolly's construction of a political identity. and she began when she was the wife of the secretary of state in 1801. she would have no idea, of course, what was going to be happening 12 to 14 years later. but it turns out what she did was precisely right. this idea of constructing an identity is one of the most rich and fruitful historical inquiries in the last 50 years and there's a whole literature on identity and it's far too wide and varied to be summarized here but at the risk of oversimplification here are some commonalities to this identity constructing process. identity-make canning occur at the individual level, a single person, and at a larger collective level and, of course, sometimes they operate both at the same time. similarly identity process cans happen both consciously and unconsciously and these dynamics about identity mark the awareness and the manipulation of the self, which makes it a modern phenomenon. people are at this time becoming aware of selves. in viewing dolly's political construction, you can see a lot of tenets of identity theory at play so as a person of her time and place she was offered and accepted probably unconsciously the roles presented by her culture and those roles were southern southerner, lady, political hostess along with the more common roles of wife and mother. dolly added elements from european and royal cull kmurs, however, to create her republican queen, a persona which she deployed to political effect. dolly's position as queen dolly resulted in her ascension as the charismatic figure for the madison administration. and as i said it began quite early, certainly by the time madison is grated in 1809 but enhance bid the outbreak of war. in the historical search for dolly's creation of this republican queen, the sources don't lie in dolly's own words, she's not discussed her work that way her n her private correspondence. for evidence we must rely on the many descriptions of dolly that were supplied by those who saw her or met her, especially at her famous wednesday night drawing rooms. edly descriptions of dolly that pepper the letters and newspaper reports of the early republic had been regarded by historians as a form of color commentary and not the least because they're actually quite colorful. men and women reported back home on what dolly wore, served, how she moved and how she streeted people. but we have to look at these descriptions not just as mere celebrity mentions. the people who regarded dolly so minutely, whether members of the ruling elite or ordinary americans and europeans invested in the republican experiment what they were looking for in how she looked and behaved, therm looking for signs and clues about the mad diss themselves, maybe a specific police cal event, especially the fate of the republican. after the american revolution at a time of flux and change with very few real political structures in place, these new americans focus tonight persons of their leaders and the number one person they subjected their attention was george washington. in the early republic, people transferred this evaluative capacity to dolley. the charismatic figure is the person who can convey psychological messages to large groups of people. although the psychological aspect important to any political milieu, indeed, there are some who say all politics are psychological, it was especially important in the infant early republic. it influenced the way americans felt about how they were ruled and that was key to the survival of the nation. recent scholarship, especially historians of women's lives and gender, has revealed that the early u.s. government and the political culture that it spawned was much more dependent on royal forms of rule than we ever previously thought. the newly liberated columnist in turned citizens it seemed not only had an appetite for aristocracy, they crave it had legitimacy and authority conveyed by the only vocabulary of power they knew. so the founding men even as they were putting together a new nation along the line of what they called pure republicanism, that they found they might actually need the trappings of authoritarian aristocracy in order to command the widespread respect and to reasure people that the right kind of people were ruling them. now this is a tricky balance to achieve. how much was too much in the quest to repurpose the old vocabulary of aristocracy? to convey the legitimacy of the national experiment. and perhaps federalists such as washington and john adams would have freely brought back the aristocratic practices, we have evidence of that, a number of americans, however, the ones who would be republican followers of thomas jefferson, wanted nothing to do with the old world and kept a sharp eye out for, as they would have called it, encroaching aristocracy. so as it turned out, this aristocracy/republican balance came down on one side or the other in a lot of different ways. one of the way this is tension played out as issues of power often do was on the field of gender. so in the end the women of the ruling elite were given the task of conveying the aristocratic message to the masses. and ironically because they were considered private, they had a lot more latitude than men did to do that. the genius of this persona that i'm talking about, the republican queen, was that it made a bold rehabilitation on this issue, mixing extremes on both sides for maximal effect. o so dolley combined a regal visual persona with a personality that seemed down right democratic. and she put it to use at her social events. report after report, mostly favorable, described her regal bearing and fan fantastical costumes as dolley presided over her drawing room. over and over, her guests cautioned her demeanor is so far removed from the hauteur generally attended on royalty that your fancy can carry the resemblance no further than the head dress. she was a queen, many proclaimed her that, but as samuel latham mitchell, the new york congressman said, she was a queen of hearts. james had employed dolley's personifying gifts during the difficult decision to declare war and how he did this allowed him to hold the war hawks at bay while he weighed options for peace. it's during this time that dolley and henry clay make several noted and publicized appearances, thus signaling to watchers, political watchers, that though james could not officially embrace the war hawks' agenda, he was not discounting for it. he was not discounting it all together. now, there seems to have been no hint of sexual impropriety in the stories that circulated about dolley and henry clay, unless one counts the symbol of sharing a snuff box. see, now we went in different way here so there we go. so both dolley and henry clay shared their addiction to the substance and doll owe's public sharing of her stuff box with clay was read by all and sundry as a sign of henry clay's favor within the madison administration. political commentator and writer margaret baird smith saw it as "a most magical influence in soothing savage political breasts." she said "for who could partake of its contents offered them in a man sore cordial and gracious and retain a feeling inanymore mitt to believe the interest of the bestower?" this way dolly had henry clay on a kind of political string as it were while james decided what to do. dolley's persona was firmly in place in washington city when the u.s. congress declared war on great britain in june, 1812. shortly after the declaration, the president was in what we moderns would call a public relations nightmare. though the people at the time did not have the vocabulary, they recognized his dilemma as such. virginia representative william burwell worried to his wife that "the difficulties of his situation have increased in a great degree." as far as burwell was concerned, madison's only hope lay in influencing public sentiment by some brilliant achievement. that's not a bad thought. but unfortunately for james madison, the war went badly right from the beginning to the madison's chance for a brilliant achievement play dolley who took her symbolizing capacity to a new level. her brilliant achievements were not the dramatic stuff of military victories and battles at sea, their execution and effects were subtler, if as significant. dolley's wartime efforts intensified her prewar work. she had always used her social circles to bring people together in large gatherings which allowed them to fulfill their own political goals while fulfilling the madison's political goal of unity. in the first congressional season after the declaration, dolley began her social campaign early, returning to the capital after only one week at month peel year, according to her "in the midst of business and anxiety, anxious for the fate of the war only." throughout the war she gave more parties than ever before and it's interesting if you read her letters she uses a phrase i find very telling about these parties. she calls them "the routine of gaiety." which i think hints at what it took produce these brilliant scenes, as people called them. as cat said, before the war, her drawing rooms became known as squeezes because there were 200 to 00 guests crammed into the oval room but wartime wednesdays housed up to 500. that first month of the congressional season dolley's butler left her for france and she told her cousin and james's personal secretary edward coles "i am acting in his department and the city is more than ever crowded with strangers, my head is dizzy." no one was more visible at her parties than queen dolley. though personally she was as partisan as any man in congress, because she was a woman, dolley could be seen as politically neutral. men of parties had interests dictated by their political needs, but women could be disinterested, simply patriotic for their own sakes. her work transcended her political affiliation. since men were associated with one party or the other, no male, not even the president, could represent the united states because, of course, in theory, as a woman, she was above politics, dolley could appear to the american public and european observers as a larger-than-life embodiment of disinterested patriotism and nation. during the war of 1812, then, dolley became not just the charismatic figure for james madison but for america. now her famed abilities to draw people to her had an urgent larger purpose. her mission was to convey to the capital and to the country that the government was working and this the war was being conducted well. she presented a picture of calm optimism and unquestioning support. military troops had begun honoring her by parading past her house when she was the wife of the secretary of state now they marched by the white house to be reviewed by her and she did so as a general would. dolley then invited the soldiers in and served them refreshments "giving liberally of the bst of the house." she made a lot, perhaps too much, of the few military victories that came the united states's way and of the men responsible and as i think as dr. lambert said earlier, the biggest surprise of the war was how well the navy performed and now that we know how little it really got them, it's amazing what dolley made of it. so as you heard in the 1812 naval campaign, american forces captured the british ships, the gee area and the macedonian and the officers presented the captured ship's colorstor flags to dolley in very public ceremonies. >> as the president and secretary edward coles arranged the first of these presentation, in a culture where intelligence traveled slowly, such displays were a welcome source of good news both in informing the public what happened and heartening them. dolley was very conscious of the this honor paid to her and the country. during the presentation of the "macedonian's" colors, sara gale seton noticed the flush and pride of patriotism that sufficient fused dolley's face. she said "i saw her color come and go." as always, dolley's visibility cut both ways and her position as a disinterested patriot did not go unquestioned. political enemies tried to turn events against her, particularly a federalist congressman samuel dolley defiantly stamping on the colors laid before her, thus tarnishing the united states world reputation. so he said "an englishman in the city hearing this report basely observed that charlotte" meaning the queen of great britain "would not have done so with the american colors." discussing this incident later in life dolley denied making such a gesture and indeed the story seems unlikely. such a public display of negative seems out of character of a woman of such control and consciousness and also the fact that it was the federalist spreading the story around, the story seems suspicious. according to dolley, when the men had been carrying the flag to her by the corners -- and this is according to her niece -- commodore stewart let his end fall either by accident or design, the motive has been much questioned. according to dolley it was another lady crying out "trample on it." and dolley drew back saying "oh, no, not so" while the lady advanced and put her foot on it. as the war advanced, the fears of invasion among district's residents grew. it didn't help matters when those in the capital began to hear tales of civilian intimidation brought by the commander of naval operations, sir george coburn. dolly's job as the face of the war became even more crucial. she might write privately to her husbanden edward coles about the atmosphere of fears and alarms. she was afraid but the populists looked to her and they found reassurance. our friend william burwell from virginia right before invasion wrote to his wife let tisha again saying "i assure you i do not believe there's the smallest cause for alarm." and what was his proof? it was his proof of how the ladies were reacting led by dolley. i do not perceive the least alarm among the women. they proceed the ample means take on the defend them and are well aware of their safety. so in her role as a stand in for her husband. dolly madison attracted both positive and negative attention. during the summer of 1813, coburn fed the rumors of invasion by threatening her. while relating to edward the details of the plot wherein british rogues were to land at alexandria under cover of darkness and set fire to the white house, dolley confessed "i do not tremble at this but feel affronted that the admiral should send me notice that he would make his bow at my drawing room soon." surely her bravado was a bit of a pose. she could betor given dread ago man with what she called a savage style of warfare. the panic washington state abated somewhat when coburn did not attack in the summer of 1813 but the panic returned stronger than ever the next year and it turns out, of course, they were absolutely right to panic. the invasion of washington city began in the early mornings of august 19, 1814 as the british force of 4,000 landed at benedict, maryland. curriers brought the news including admiral coburn's that he intended to dine in washington in two days. doll dolley remained her rhetorical focus as he sent word to mrs. madison that unless she left the house the house would be burned over her head. notice he didn't include james in this threat or the other threat he is to capture her as a prisoner of war. on august 2323-james left the white house and the national intelligentsia reported the rumor that 5,000 or 6,000 british troops joined the force in maryland and that this panicked washington signaling a mass exodus. alone in the white house, september for her servants and slaves, dolley was poised to make her name in history. now, the story that we now of dolley's most famous day and the subsequent crafting of her historical legacy will be examined tomorrow by holly shulman in this program but i will conclude then just by saying that dolley's ability to achieve historical and popular fame after the war, though, was a direct result of this experiment and identity making that rendered her the queen of washington city long before the first shots were fired in the war of 1812 most americans understand that the victory was psychological than dolly's symbolizing work made that sense of victory possible. thank you very much. [ applause ] thanks so much. oh, and now's my favorite time questions and answers so as we said we have a microphone there and i think maybe somebody traveling around with the mic. does anyone have questions? yes, let's see if we can get you a mic. i tell you what, why don't you ask a question, i'll repeat it. >> how much of dolley's performance was dictated by her husband's inability to say yes or no. [ inaudible ] >> right, so this is a question about the contrasting dolley's performance with james' performance or non-performance, if you will. a lot has been made of the contrast between dolley madison and james madison. she is this sort of tall shapely vivacious woman, never forgets a name, face or family pedigree, proving her a true southerner. warm and lovely and all that and everybody likes to make fun of james madison, washington irving calls him a withered little al p john. he's seen as -- all kinds of famous quotes about him and i don't want to load up on james madison with the president here. [ laughter ] but there's two things -- it's easy to make that contrast and, of course, they're a great team but there's two things i think that we have to remember. he is an intellectual. james madison is a pure intellectual and like many of the founders he construct add lovely theory on which to run a government. i'm going to tell you that theory is not going to work, it's going to become a democracy in about 30 years and it will be two parties and pretty much their separation of the republic is going to fade away. they don't know this at this time. and what dolly madison did along with her other female colleagues is endeavor to take this lovely theory, this lovely machine of government and put it into action. and by putting into action discovering its strengths and weaknesses. so, for instance, in the lovely theory that james madison has there's no place for anything aristocratic or anything like that. there's no patronage which is just the hallmark. well, you can't run a government that way. borrowing from royal courts in ord to try to make this theory work. so i think that's something. so you understand that when everybody's describing dolley and how fabulous she is and she's like a queen, they're also describing james in a positive way. that is by saying look at this guy. there's no way he's going to be the charismatic male figure that we fear in a republic. that was the big fear. that somebody like george washington that he was going to take over and become an emperor. napoleon for his height, he was a charismatic figure. so they're a great contrast for the people at the time. here's little quiet james madison in his republican broadcloth. he's not a threat to anybody whereas dolley -- not a threat because she's a woman -- appears and gives everybody this kind of authority that -- and legitimacy that royalty kind of imparts. the other thing i want to say about them and there are two very different people, you can say by lech which you will, not intellectual, introvert. they are both abhorrent to conflict. they are both striving for his goal and his goal was national unity. and in everything that she does publicly, you can see her enacting his goal. so for all that they look so different, they have values in common. sometimes that worked out well for them and sometimes it didn't, but it was something profound that they shared. >> when i hear descriptions of madison's that are demeaning to him, i think one of the reasons is because the men who said it were jealous of him and when you think she was probably the most well known and admired woman of her generation and he was this unattractive and unassuming and quiet and his tummy hurt. how did he win the most popular and beautiful woman of his day? >> well, you come right to it right now. >> and in her 80s she was still in love with him. what man in here can say something like that? [ laughter ] oh. >> oh, my lord, i do not want to see a show of hands. this is very interesting. you got right to it. there's all these terrible descriptions of james and they're awful and yes, they're all political and people are probably jealous because he was the smarest guy in the room. the question is why did at 26 years old dolley payne todd, a widow with a son and a little bit of money choose james madison to marry? in fact, she chooses him so quickly people are sort of shocked. she gets married a year after her husband dies in the yellow fever epidemic and we have pretty good evidence that he was swept away by her. she was very beautiful but very little evidence that this was all love's young dream to dolley madison. the one thing we have is a letter written on her wedding day which basically justifies her marriage to james as being good for her son and she signs the letter to her friend dolley todd, and once she's written she writes dolley madison alas. we don't know what that's about. we know they fall in love at some point. that happens after marriage, people, and they become a fabulous pair. but why did she choose him? she could have had her pick of anyone this is where we wish our historians had written more. she had grown up in the time of chattel slave and the gentry. and her father freed about nine slaves because of conscience, quaker conscience, and when she's 15 moves the family to philadelphia which is very cold compared to anything down south. he didn't move them to richmond but philadelphia because he wanted to be in the center of the quaker world. so by the time she's 26 and considering marriage to james madison, she's been up north for ten years and terrible things have happened. there's a yellow fever epidemic, she loses her husband, loses her child, her father is pushed out of quaker meeting, her dies of depression. it was terrible in philadelphia. terrible time. so i think that there's a part of they are that looked at this quite likely man and thought i could go back to that place of my childhood and, in fact, go back at a higher station because she'd be the mistress of montpelier. now, the part that i can't believe she didn't think about but we have no sources is what did the idea of returning to a slave holding state mean to her? now, if she were just a virginia miss you could just say well, she didn't think about it. but she -- her parents were quakers. there was a lot of discussion about slavery and abolition far ahead of its time. her father gave his slaves freedom because of this and that was the reason she ended up in philadelphia. so i don't know if she had qualms about returning to a slave holding society or whether she went without a backward glance. someday somebody will find a trunk of letters and tell me what i need to know. >> thomas jefferson said he was the most brilliant speaker along with pendleton that he had ever heard so he is not a quiet little man. >> james madison was a formidable skbi elect and speaker and i think we have to take these many descriptions of madison for what they are, which is politics. ralph, this is the biographer of james madison, ralph catch chum. >> didn't dolley say somewhere "i'm going see the great little madison?" >>. >> so i have to say so dolley madison, when she meets james madison, she's in the capital of the united states and congress is there and she has heard of what she called "the great little madison." i have to say that -- i have to acknowledge you as the biographer of madison but also the savior of many of dolley's papers. so when ralph ketchum was doing his biography of madison, he would note where he saw a dolley paper. and people keep women's papers differently than they keep mens. so one of the papers that exists now only in microfilm thanks to you is a version of the memoir written by dolley's niece mary cuts and i use the "memoir" this way because most of the stuff in the memoir happens before she's even born. so we kind of think it is the closest autobiographical voice to dolley that we have and that's the source of the great little madison, yes. so he's definitely famous. yes. sir, you're standing there. good for you. >> i'm by the mic. >> you are. >> dolley is first lady for eight years during madison's administration. jefferson is a widower in a previous eight years and james monroe, who serves the next eight years after madison, his wife is somewhat limited her her ability to be in the public eye could you talk about how dolley -- does her role as first lady expand in either one of those administrations? >> i would pity anybody who would follow dolley madison. and sadly for elizabeth monroe people noted it. it was noted by people. louisa catherine adams, who would go on to follow mrs. monroe would say "she's just not dear dolley." and of course what mrs. monroe brought -- once you understand there's a tension between aristocracy and republicanism or democracy, you can see the united states wrestling with it so when elizabeth monroe comes with her polish from the continent she tries to set and footing with not great success. she didn't have that touch where dolley could blend those two absolu absolutely and i have to say i dwloe to holly schulman, we talked about this and she's right. too much has been made of the fact that thomas jefferson was a widower and that people said that dolley madison served as a stand in for him. and it is true that when there were ladies at table he would ask dolley and sometimes her sisters to come in though he had an official hostess which was his daughter martha jefferson randolph. but to think of dolley waiting in wings obscures the fact that what she was really doing over those years, thomas jefferson feared aristocracy, he cut out any kind of socializing including the new year's day party and -- he kept new years and fourth of july but that was it. there were to be no parties where women and all kinds of unofficial characters as he called women and courtiers were going to appear. he had those famous dinner parties with men of one party or the other because he was trying to control power. what was happening in the house of the secretary of state during those eight years that dolley is building a little mini empire there. that's the place in washington. if you came to washington on an evening you would see a dark house but the house on "f street street was full of color. that's where federalists met republicans, she was building a political salon there and that becomes apparent when diplomacy between britains and the united states screeches to a halt and the marys eat at the madisons' house. so it's important to look not as kind of a stand in first lady but she's building a power base and it's no wonder when james madison is elected the people of the town said they're very happy to have mrs. madison as presidentess. i think we have one more question so we can stay on time. yes, sir? >> wasn't it similarfully unfortunate circumstance of succeeding thomas jefferson who was certainly more colorful and more authoritative? so something like truman succeeding fdr, that people who liked fdr looked at this -- would say he seemed colorless in relation to his predecessor. >> the question is about poor james madison suffering comparison to the tall redheaded thomas jefferson. i really actually think -- though i'm sure there's always something that in this milieu it could have been anybody who would have gotten it. the republican party at that time was suffering what -- suffering the disease of the victors, which is infighting. with thomas jefferson sort of sweeping into town with this new party, the federalists were really on their way out and they were going to let go without a fight but they were on their way out and so instead of kind of holding together and catherine ackerly mitchell, the wife of senator latham mitchell from new york said why do they keep fighting? they're just trying to pull in splint we are him because james madison's greatest enemies were his fellow republicans. so thank you very much. [ applause ] coverage of the speakers at the symposium on the british burning of washington, d.c. it's 55 minutes. wb war and pulitzer prize winning the internal enemy slavery in the war in virginia. it highlights the understudied story of the war of 1812, particularly the runaway slaves to sought their freedom by working with british forces. let's hear about this story of the war. . >> thank you for that very kind introduction. i'm grateful to you for all your hard work in organizing this to the white house historical association and the u.s. capitol historical association and to james madison's montpelier for he escaped from princess ann county in the vicinity of where you would find virginia beach today. it's july of 1807. he was 14 years old and he stole a boat and he rowed out to a british warship anchored in nearby lynn haven bay. bid to defuse tensions with the americans. but remarkably instead of dwelling on that betrayal, willis later recalled that he "had been to the british once calvert county, maryland, a farmer sought water by visiting a spring. spri he noted a group of slaves already there. so the farmer hid behind a tree and he overheard the negroes belonging to the said john j. e brook huzzahing for the different british admirals. two days later, three of those cheering slaves fled to the warships. now, the argument i want to makt today is that by their at enthusiasm for the british as potential liberators the enslaved people of the chesapeake made it the so. flocking to them in unanticipated numbers. that would be early 1814 ma compelling major jorethinking o british strategy in the chesapeake. at the start of their first chesapeakest campaign in 1813 t british officers were under off orders to take on no more than a few black men and only men who could be useful as pilots and guides. but a year later in 1814 they t would seek and entice hundreds of runaways, including women and children and including willis. so like willis, the other runaways would not take no for an answer. now, professor am bert gave a a nice introduction of the reluctance of the british to the enghij this war and they were d slow to wage the war with greatl vic gohr because they hoped it would end pretty quickly in its first year. so it's only in the second year in the war in 1813 that they ena send a major expedition into chesapeake bay with the purpose of punishing the states of virginia and maryland from a pe sthaepgs those two states were the heartland of american resour resources and also the political home principally in virginia of the governing republican party , which the british quite rightly blamed for making this war. so the british purpose in comino into chesapeake bay in 1813 is initially not to free any slaves of any significant numbers. i their job is to punish the americans who lived along the shores of the chesapeake. to do so primarily by raiding shipping that was vulnerable to this british naval supremacy which was overwhelming in bay. chesapeake bay. and secondarily to raid exposed and vulnerable villages along the major waterways. what the british are very very reluctant to do is to go into in the interior they were fearful of the very dense forest that ed surrounded the chesapeake. they feared being ambushed. they feared american riflemen.fe they didn't know where an attack might be coming from and they didn't know in what numbers andw they simply did not know the lay of the land and that's very ad inhibiting on the british and f when you read the letters of d their captains and admirals during1 1813, they are full of mystery and fear about the a interior. just a mile or two beyond where they could make their landings . so they're very skittish and ll they're not all thatth effectiv. so despite the miseries that they do inflict on a fair numbea of americans during the campaign of 1813, that campaign closes with a sense of frustration by y british naval commanders in thee chesapeake. they have note no achieved theio principal goal, which was to make life so miserable for the people of virginia and marylandh that their government would call off their invasion of canada. e far from it.nada. the united states is planning yet again to pursue an invasion of canada in 1814. despite the failures of their i invasion attempts in 1812 and 1813. now, another problem that the british had that had inhibited them from being aggressive and going ashore is that they were fearful that their own men wouln desert. the royal navyould had a major problem which was it was short handed and it's short handed because the royal navy is very large and as andrew lambert s vy pointed out or i should say the british ooils are not large andd populous places and maintaining a global navy was a major ajor challenge and to do so at an unprecedented scale, the royal y navy is larger than it's ever been before in its history in 1813 and 1814. because of their war against napoleon on a global scale.ips h and so the ships that are sent over into the chesapeake are shor tt hand ed then they suffe the loss of further seamen. now a few of them are combat deaths and a few more of them are deaths from disease but there's also a significant loss by december sergs because sailors decide that wages are higher and alcohol is cheaper. s n the united states.d and the working conditions are e whole lot better off in off i baltimore than they are on a eye british royal navy warship. now, i'm not saying here that most sailors dessert ord that most sailors wanted to dessert. but any december sergs is a problem for these crews that are already short handed and britisa officers have the perception that their menorth are prone ton dessert along the coast of the united states to a much greatere degree than they ever would desert anywhere else in the e i world. so the british -- this adds to a a certain skittishness when the e british do go ashore because their commanders have the ununviable task of fighting an enemy while closely guarding on their own men. so the chesapeake have a couplee of problems. that are revealed in 1813 in hei their operation.on one is they need able-bodied med to who would resolutely fight the enemy rather than desert toe it. potential solution lay inr the hundreds of runaway slaves who were eager to be on british naval warships. and they were fleeing in stolen boats and canoes to seek anticipated a better life in tha republic, the former slave didn't want to go back to the republic. and so they did not desert.did o indeed as marines, they could be deployed to watch the white sailors and to pursue deserters. admiral coburn sought to replacn many of his white marines with recruits. quote, they are stronger men and more trustworthy. for we assure they will not mo i desert, whereas i am sorry so t say we have instances of our it marines walking over to the enemy. end quote. and promoting slave escapes and seemed a perfect turnabout to punish the americans who were so zealous about enticing britons e to desert from their duty. and so it is the desertion problem that is one of those things that nudges these naval officers to embrace blacks as essential allies in the chesapeake war.iv to perform more effectively, the british needed more men.w, the now they have a second problem, they need better knowledge of ya the landscape. and here, too, the solution to their problem lies with runaway slaves who are pressing sl themselves on the british in growing numbers during 1813.ring now, they're under strict orderr not to take in a significant te number of refugees.signific these orders were renewed in march of 1813 by the british bt secretary of state for war in is the colonies.olonie but despite these orders, blacke men, women, and children are stealing boats and they are rowing out to these warships anr they are essentially calling the bluff of the british naval rcing commanders. and they are forcing those nava officers to make some hard sion. decisions. will they take in these men, women, and children in violation of their orders or send them sn back to suffer severe punishment by their masters? and naval officers are coming t? perceive african-americans as a potential military resource thas could be invaluable. and they know that if they starw systematically sending these aty people back to severe s punishment, that they will lose that potential resource. also, frankly, they like feeling holier than thou compared to americans and they're just sick about americans going on about how liberty loving they are.s an here's a great opportunity for t british naval officers to say ft who is the world's most sincere and true champions of liberty in the world? the people taking on napoleon bonaparte, and willing to these allegedly freedom-loving republicans of the united states? naval well, this is just too delicious for british naval officers to resist. and they really don't want to tt resist and so they have to write to their home government to try to get that home government to d shift its policy. in late may, admiral warren reported that his warships had e received about 70 refugees, quote, to whom it was impossible to refuse an asylum, end quote. and in these reports to his doin superiors, warren is walking a fine line. a he's making clear that he's following official policy and doing his best to discourage these runaways but can't reallya turn them all away. ilie although they're including entire families of women and children, as well as men. by the end of 1813, the best evidence is that at least 600 ed enslaved people from the chesapeake had escaped to the british.h. on november 14th, the captain of the royal navy noted their military potential.th of quote, the slaves continue to come off by every opportunity and i have now upwards of 120 f men, women, and children on board and if their assertions b true, there is no doubt but the, blacks of have is a and maryland would cheerfully take up arms and join us against the americans, end quote. although many masters have comen out on the flags of truce to the british warship and asked for permission to speak to their slaves. quote, not a single black would return to his former owner, end quote. january of 1814, the british 18 government comes around and endorses warren's proposal to enlist black troops among the o runaways.ck and, indeed, it also authorizes the naval commanders to take in women and children as well, foro it was well understood that the men would not come if they could not also bring women and take children with them. implementation of the new policf fell to vice admiral sir alex od cochran who supplanted war in command of the north american ew squadron on april 1st of 1814. and he issued his famous proclamation, which is extremely clever in its word. it never uses the word slaves. but instead his address is to, o quote, all those who may be disposed to emigrate from the united states with their families." now, it turns out there's only one white family that takes thes up on this and that was in at georgia at the end of the war and the british were completely flummoxed by this and had to d explain to this poor white family that it really wasn't meant for them. but it's also -- in his proclamation, in the typography of this, because he had 1,000 pf copies of this printed out, the word free is put in capital haa letters compared to everything else around, and it's giving these emigrants quote, their choice of either entering into his majesty's sea or land forces or being sent as free settlers to north america or the west indies where they will meet witr all due encouragement, end quote. now, i mentioned that cochran had a thousand copies of this no printed up. he had his subordinate admiral coburn and his subordinates distribute this when they go onr shore. they'll nail this up on trees. they're trying to get the word out.s hey incredibly, the americans help g in the process, unwittingly, by reprinting the proclamation in r their newspapers.ocwitti now, they do this because they g can't wait to denounce it apers. because they just think this isa the most horrible thing on eartt and it's really an invitation tn slave revolt and they want to wt assure slaves that they are thr really being lulled away and the british are going to sell them away into slavery in the west n indies. so, by anything that appears in the american newspapers, peoplec talk about. &hc% that is the culture of the day.h and this is world in which black people and white people live rmd right intermixed amongst each lk other.y and so anything that white folk talk about, black folk learn ntl about and they interpret it in l their own way. so the "national intelligencer" doesn't mean to be promoting an slave escapes but it unwittingly does so. and the orders now are different.si instruc so cochran instructs coburn, quote, let the landings you make be more for the protection of the desertion of the black population than with a view to any other advantage.any the great point to be obtained g is the cordial support of the black population, with them properly armed and backed with d 20,000 british troops, mr. madison will be hurled from hish throne.rom so this is now job one. no this isn't some by-product. this is what you've got to do first and foremost because it id the essential means to the end.t the defeat of the madison administration. now, these are the types of boats that the british used in . the shore raids. this is a drawing done by a rear admiral who was active in the ad chesapeake operation, sir mi malcolm. the actual drawing was done sap along the coast -- along the shores of louisiana later in thh war, but it's the same type of coastal craft used in the war. chesapeake. now, the british establish a refugee camp on tangier island and it's regarded as ideal because it is sufficiently removed from the shores of virginia, the mainland shores om virginia. it's pretty secure from attack. but it's close enough and it's right in the center of the blac population of virginia, which is in the tidewater, both on the eastern shore and to the west on the western shore. and coburn's words, the island was, quote, surrounded by the districts from which the negroeh always come, end quote. this is a modern artist's attempt to imagine the drillings of colonial marines. colonial marines was the specia, unit formed for american blacks former slaves, to augment in british forces in the chesapeake. we have no images from that time of colonial marines so it requires an artist informed by knowing what the uniforms of regular marines looked like and knowing something about the structures that would be built in virginia at that time. so this is showing the refugee r camp at tangier island and it'sh showing the drilling by a white officer who is the man gesturinw with his hand of three new recruits of the colonial marines. initially, admiral coburn has aa pretty low expectation of these

Related Keywords

Chesapeake Bay , Maryland , United States , Louisiana , Tangier Island , Virginia , Washington City , District Of Columbia , Alexandria , Al Iskandariyah , Egypt , Vermont , California , Russia , Washington , Richmond , Leipzig , Sachsen , Germany , Decatur House , Chesapeake , New Orleans , Belgium , Sandy Hook , Vienna , Wien , Austria , Madison House , King George , Poland , Spain , Calvert County , Elba , Germany General , Huntington Library , New York , United States Capitol , Canada , Macedonia , Malta , Mount Vernon , Glasgow City , United Kingdom , North Point , Orkney Islands , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Lynn Haven Bay , Boston , Massachusetts , Georgia , Toronto , Ontario , London , City Of , Maine , Virginia Beach , Nebraska , France , Polish , Americans , America , Britons , Englishman , Canadian , Macedonian , Russian , Britain , Canadians , French , British , German , Frenchmen , Russians , American , Napoleon Bonaparte , Edward Coles , Alan Taylor , Michael Cox , Mi Malcolm , William Burwell , Vic Gohr , Mary Francis Berry , George Coburn , Walter Scott , Margaret Baird Smith , Dolley Madison , Queen Dolley , Elizabeth Monroe , James Madison Ralph , Dolly Madison , Holly Schulman , Latham Mitchell , William Allman , Louisa Catherine Adams , James Madison Mount , Gilbert Stewart , Holly Shulman , Alexander Cochran , Dolley Butler , Henry Clay , William Charles , James Lawrence , Dolley Payne Todd , James Madison , Pamela Scott , Catherine Agor , John Adams , Andrew Lambert , James Monroe , Okay Hagen , Warren G Harding , Commodore Stewart , Commodore Rogers , Martha Jefferson Randolph , Andrew Jackson , Knight Kiplinger , Henry Hotham , Mike Gonzalez , Thomas Jefferson , Queen Dolly , Gerald Ford , Tom Tillis , Ralph Ketchum , Rachelle Ann Scott , Richard Nixon , Benson J Lawson , Dolley Todd , Samuel Latham Mitchell ,