Forces, who burned down the white house. Next on American History tv, the war of 1812 scholars and authors discuss the british burning of washington. This hourlong event took place earlier today at bladensburg Waterfront Park in maryland. First, i want to welcome everyone to this roundtable discussion on the war of 1812. We are certainly happy to have you in bladensburg, maryland, in prince georges county. You know, i am the county executive, rushern baker, and i get the pleasure of doing something i love to do, and that its talking about history and the role the county and state played. I want to welcome the cspan audience who might be watching today on this 200th anniversary of the battle at bladensburg, which i think is tomorrow. This is going to be a really fun day for me and i am looking forward to hearing from our panel of experts. Normally, you hear the elected officials talk a lot. This will be the most you hear me. We will get to those who are here who are experts and will enlighten us all. On our panel am a i am introducing, im not sure if he is here yet, christopher george, who is a medical editor by profession and is an independent historian. He was born in liverpool, england, lives in baltimore, he has a ba in history from Loyola University of baltimore, and an mla from john hopkins university. He is now a u. S. Citizen, but he readily admits to divided loyalties over the war of 1812. Chris is the founder Founding Editor of the journal of the war of 1812 and the originator and coordinator of the national war of 1812 composium series. His book, the terror on the chesapeake, was published in 2001. The Baltimore Sun wrote about his book, it must be considered, that topic, the war of 1812, the best, singlevolume treatment yet. Chris, along with john, have a book coming out next year. So, when chris gets here, we will have him appear and join us. We have with us peter snow. Very glad to have peter here. He was born in dublin. He did his National Service in the somerset light infantry, which sounds really gallant. He then went on to, you will have to correct me, ballahoo college at oxford, where he got his degree in classics and ancient history and philosophy. In 1960, he joined British Independent Television network, where he served as diplomatic correspondent. He later joined the bbc, where he did political reporting along with a wide range of other programming. For example, he and his son dan presented programs on bbc2 on the battle on eight british battles. [indiscernible] the worlds greatest 20thcentury battlefields. This is going to be so much fun. In 2010, peters biography was published. His book, when britain burned the white house,was published last year. The Washington Post called the book a fine example of literary popular history. Welcome, peter. We also have steve vogel, who i had a chance of sitting in a roundtable before, a veteran journalist. He is a graduate of the college of william and mary, a great college, and he received his masters degree in International Public policy from Johns Hopkins university advanced school of international study. He previously wrote for the Washington Post, a local, little paper, about military affairs and the treatment of veterans. His reporting about the war in afghanistan was part of a package of the stories that were selected as finalists for the 2002 pulitzer prize. He also covered the war in iraq and the first gulf war, as well as u. S. Military operations in rwanda, somalia, and the balkans. His book, which is very good, i did read this one, about the battle of bladensburg, through the perilous fight, was published last year. It was reviewed and it was said steve did a superb job of bringing this woeful tale to life. He levened his fastpaced narrative with lively vignettes of principal participants in the folly. Steve is with us. Finally, dr. Ralph eshelman, who i had the pleasure of hearing a couple days ago, has over 35 years of experience as Management Experience pacific to the war of 1812. He is the codirector of the Cultural Resource survey, which discovered and partially excavated a military vessel from the chesapeake flotilla. Ralph conducted a survey of maryland come 1812 sites with the National Park service of American Battlefield protection program, served as historian, consultant for the Planning Team for the starspangled Banner National historic trail feasibility study, and the trails comprehensive management plan. He has written and coauthored several books on the war of 1812, and having personally visited and photographed nearly every war of 1812 site in the Chesapeake Bay region, he is considered the leading expert on this resource. His book, the virginia magazine wrote that readers will enjoy the clear text peppered with numerous firsthand accounts. And now, to start us off, ralph will start us off to talk about bladensburg. Give them all a round of applause. [applause] a very good afternoon, everyone. It is wonderful to see such a great turnout. Standing room only. This is a great turnout. Thank you for showing up. The big question is, why bladensburg . Why was there this big battle at bladensburg . When the british came up the Chesapeake Bay in the summer of 1814, they then came up the river and landed at a little hamlet known as benedict, which is in charles county. That is over 35 miles from washington, d. C. , and it took them four days to march year. Here. That meant the british were coming from the south to try to reach washington. Bladensburg is to the northeast of washington, d. C. Now, that means the british had to go further than a direct, southern route. Why would they do that . Why would they come all the way this extra distance to go to bladensburg . The answer is actually very simple. The british knew that there were Three Bridges that were built across what we call the anacostia river, which is just outside where we are right now. They realized that if the americans burned those bridges, it would be very difficult for them to get across. So, by going up to bladensburg, they knew the water was shallow enough that even if the americans burned that bridge, which, interestingly enough, the americans did not burn, they would still be able to get across that fort. That is why the battle of bladensburg took place where we are right now. It was further for them to go, but it afforded the british a clear opportunity without being inhibited by the burning of these bridges. Before we get to more questions, i wanted to make it clear to everybody that i personally believe it is a misnomer to call this the battle of bladensburg. I say that because, number one, the battle did not really take place in bladensburg. The british occupied bladensburg. There was minor resistance from a couple of guys that fired a couple of guns. Other than that, they came into the town and took it without any defense whatsoever. The real battle took to the west, across the anacostia river, which was known as the eastern branch. If we called it the battle for washington, which truly it was, i think everybody would have a clear understanding of the significance of this battle. That is kind of my opening remarks. Peter . I think one of the great things about this wonderful country is the way you discuss, so uninhibitedly, with such frankness, one of the most embarrassing moments in American History. [laughter] we are dreading in britain, next year, we are dreading the moment when we commemorate the battle of waterloo. 2015. It hugely overshadows the war of 1812. We were fighting napoleon. So, waterloo, the battle of waterloo, the victory in 1815, nine months from now, as it were. We greatly dread the moment when the battle of waterloo is commemorated. They are not likely to come along to things like this and chat away. There wont be much of that going on, im afraid. Here we are discussing, as ralph brilliantly introduced, bladensburg. One of the reasons youre so happy to discuss it because you feel it led on toward the triumph, victory. I just want to stir you up. I dont think baltimore can be described as a victory. I think it is an outrageous thing to say. I am sorry. The battle of baltimore, the lifting of the siege of baltimore, was a huge victory for the americans. It was certainly a failure for the british, but i think to call it an american victory is nonsense. Only a couple of days before, they pulled out of the baltimore operation. The americans were made to withdraw. There was a smaller number of americans than british. The british commander had a bigger army than the baltimore general who was in charge of the americans. That was the sort of british victory there. What happened after that, the british decided it was not worth a candle. They were facing overwhelming odds. They said, we are not going to go on. Of course, they failed to reduce fort mchenry. It is a Great American success. To call it a victory is an overstatement. Back to bladensburg very briefly, i think there are three problems the brits had at bladensburg. They approached bladensburg in quite an apprehensive way. They were worried about the battle of bladensburg. It was 50 miles for ships. It was a very small force. 50 miles for the shift. They found themselves facing a quite large army on the bank. And he had to face the three big problems. One was the heat. You have no idea you have an idea if you live the heat was absolutely unbelievable. Guys in their red woolen tunics were falling down, as some of them dying of heat, british soldiers. Secondly, the width of the bridge, which they started by crossing, my understanding is they went across the bridge and there were getting used to the idea, but the bridge that crossed the anacostia was very narrow. Anyone who crossed the bridge had to face this impressive cannon fire from the american front lines which did do severe damage. That was a big problem. The third problem, of course, was the problem of the guy on the monument, young georgie. No christian could not detract one cannot detract from the fact that Joshua Barney facing the entire victorious british army, which had wiped away two of the First American lines, faced a small force. Barney was a serious problem for the brits. He took his life in his hands. Three huge problems. I am sorry to say, it was an american disaster. [laughter] thank you. Steve . Maybe you can read on the americans. I will see what i can do. Peter did make a claim about baltimore being a defeat last night and my response to him was fairly simple. Scoreboard. [laughter] the point was, the important point is the british did withdraw. The attack was turned away. As for bladensburg, that cannot be described as an american victory by any means. But, i am very glad we are doing this today and that there has been a dedication of the monument this morning, because i think we sometimes tend to make all these jokes about bladensburg, it is known as the bladensburg races, and we joke about the soldiers who fought here, how fast they were, and all that, but i have to think, these were primarily citizen soldiers. These were militia. They were not particularly well trained. They were not well equipped and they certainly were not well led. Yet, they showed up. They were here. I wonder how many of us today would show up this an invading army was moving towards the capitol. If an invading army was moving towards the capitol. I think we need to give them credit for that. Honor their bravery. The other point i want to make here at the start is that bladensburg is also a story of missed opportunities because despite the fact that the americans were going against a very veteran troupe, well led by general ross with admiral cockburn at his side, there were opportunities for the americans to turn this attack back before bladensburg, certainly. We missed opportunities were even a modest attack on the British Advance could have turned the british back. Ross was rightfully quite nervous of this advancing of this pretty small British Force with very little artillery away from his ships. He was under strict instructions from london not to risk his force. Certainly, there was risk involved in coming to washington. Even as late as the 24th, when very belatedly, the american commanders realized the british attack would be coming through bladensburg, even though, as ralph mentioned, ultimately, it was pretty clear the british would have to come to bladensburg to get to washington. The more southern approaches certainly, they would not have been able to cross the river down there. The bridges had been blown. They would not be able to get across the river. It was wider there than here at bladensburg. If our forces had been placed a little bit earlier, a little bit more widely, and without so much chaos at the last minute, i think that British Force could have been turned back. I think when we think about bladensburg, we have to think about some of the missed opportunities, but also on her the sacrifice that was made here. Honor the sacrifice that was made here. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. George, welcome. We are starting off talking about why the battle of bladensburg. Ok. Well, one of the things that i would like to mention is that one of the things that the americans had and the british didnt have was cavalry to know what was happening up ahead. The battle of bladensburg, even though it was a defeat for the americans, directly led to what happened at baltimore, where general ross was mortally wounded, again, because he did not have he did not know what was happening a few miles up the road, where general stricker had pushed down the peninsula. It was because of key, the word key means something else, but because of key officers of the 85th regimen who had led the advance into bladensburg, namely, major george brown, who was wounded with a musket ball through the pelvis, very painful, colonel thorton, who led the 85th across the bridge, and also major wood, all these key officers were wounded here and left at bladensburg. They were not available to lead the advance at baltimore. So, the disaster that happened to the british at baltimore was because of what had happened here at bladensburg. So, bladensburg and the burning of washington was definitely a disaster and something that should not have happened. I disagree with what is said that washington was burned because of the burning of york. We can talk about that a little bit more. That has always been said for 200 years, but there is absolutely nothing in the british correspondence that says, we went to washington because we wanted revenge. The british admiral and chief, the vice admiral, wrote to the new secretary of the army, acting secretary, monroe, a week later. He mentioned the number of places where the americans had burned, including niagaraonthelake. I know we have an official here from niagaraonthelake, but he never mentioned york. That means that york was not the reason. They were not thinking about york. General ross may not have had much knowledge of the fact that the government buildings of york were burned in april of 1830. Let me start off with a question, and actually, it is a very good question. Maybe to start off with the rest of the panel on why exactly did the british burned the capital, and if it was not in response to york, why did that happen . Why dont i lead off with that question and we will take questions from the audience . I dont mind starting off on that one. We hear over and over that the british burned washington, d. C. That is not really correct. If you read good, scholarly books, they will point out to you that the british burned select public buildings. Their attempt was not to come in and totally destroy the city of washington. They actually showed restraint. I think we as americans need to recognize that. Every time we say that the british burned washington, we are actually overstating the situation, which makes it even more interesting when you consider that before the british even got to the capitol, which was the first the capitol, i mean that with an o, not an a the u. S. Navy had already begun to burn the navy yard. The two other bridges that were south of bladensburg were also on fire. Around 8 20 on the evening of august the 24th, first the bridges were burned, then the navy yard. As the british are coming into washington, d. C. , they are already seeing fire. It is not fire from them. It is fire from the United States military that is trying to keep potential military targets out of the hand of the invading army. I would just urge everyone to please keep in mind that the british truly did not burn the city of washington. I did an analysis and at best, it might be 4. 8 of the city burned by the british. [laughter] for heaven sake, i mean, massive headline of the story is that the british burned the white house. They burned down congress. They burnt down the parliament, the shrine of democracy in the usa. Why did they do it . That was the key question you asked. Straightforward and dead simple. The british army, the british people, were fighting a war of survival against napoleon, who occupied the whole of europe. They had to make sure this guy was defeated, wiped off the map. The americans were trading with napoleon. The americans, the blockade of france france was a threat to the entire western world. [indiscernible] the british were absolutely appalled that the americans decided to declare war on britain when britain was fighting napoleon. Now, britain had acted extremely arrogantly and disgracefully, right, in pressing american sailors and ships to fight in the royal maybe against france. Navy against france. That was outrageous and understandably, tempers rise. Invaded canada, a massive mistake. They invaded a country, which although, tiny population, was able to defend itself extremely impressively. The war on canada was a disaster. That really infuriated the brits. When napoleon advocated mercifully in 1814, the opportunity arose to give the americans with the british described as a good drubbing. What the british described as a good drubbing. There had been instructions to ross and cockburn. The instructions were to give the americans a good drubbing. We wanted the war of 1812 to stop. They did not want to reoccupy america. They went to washington in order to bur