And u. S. Capitol building. Historians recently discussed the battle in bladensburg, maryland. They are introduce d by Rushern Baker. I want to welcome everyone to this roundtable discussion on the war of 1812. Were certainly happy to have you in bladensburg, maryland, in the county of Prince Georges County. You know, i am the county executive of Prince Georges CountyRushern Baker and i get the pleasure of doing something i love to do and thats talking about history and the role the state and county place. I want to welcome our cspan audience who may be watching today on this 200th anniversary of the battle at bladensburg, which i think is tomorrow, the 200th anniversary. As i said i majored in history at Howard University so this is going to be a really fun day for me and im looking forward to hearing from our panel of experts. Normally you hear elected officials talk a lot, this is the most youll hear me so well get to those who are here who are experts and enlighten us all. On our panel, im not sure if hes gotten here yet. Ill introduce him. That way we wont have to reintroduce him, Christopher George a medical editor by profession and independent historian. Born in england. Lives in baltimore. He has a b. A. In history from Loyola University and mla from Johns Hopkins university. He is now a u. S. Citizen, but he readily admits to divided loyalties over the war of 1812. Chris is the Founding Editor of the journal of the war of 1812 and original coordinator of the war of 1812 symposium series. Hes written numerous articles and given lectures on the conflict. His book, terror on the chesapeake the war of 1812 on the bay was publishede h[r 2. The Baltimore Sun wrote about his book. Tq0 it must be considered that topic, the warnbk of 1812s be single volume treatment yet. And chris along with John Mccavitt have a book coming out next year, robert ross the man who burned the white house and inspired the national anthem. 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 and then went on to, hellwaie have mokcollege of oxford. N ballyho in 1960 he joined British Independent Television network where he served as diplomatic and defense 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 bbc 2 on the battle of alamean, eight british battles from butaka to the battle of britain. Thank you. I love the accent. The qhworlds great 20th centu battlefield. This is going to be so much fun. In 2010 peters biography to war with wellington was published. His book, when britain burned the white house the 1814 invasion of washington was published last year. The Washington Post called it a fine example of serious and literary popular history. So welcome, peter. We also have steve vogel who i had a chance of actually sitting at a roundtable before, a veteran journalist. Hes a graduate of the college of william mary which is a Great College and received his masters degree in International Public policy from Johns Hopkins university, advanced school of international study. Steve previously wrote for the Washington Post, local little paper. About military affairs and the treatment of veterans. His reporting about the war in package of the the Washington Post stories that were selected as finalists for the 2002 pulitzer surprise. He covered the war in iraq and the first gulf war as well as u. S. Military operations in rwanda, somalia and the balkans. About the battle of bladensburg, through the perilous fight six weeks that saved the nation was published last year. The Washington Post reviewed it and said steve did a superb job of bringing this woeful tale to life. His fast pace narrative with lively vignettes of principal participants. Steve is with us. Finally, dr. Ralph eshelman who i had the pleasure of hearing a couple of days ago and is terrific has over 35 years of experience as the cultural Management Experience specific to the war of 1812. Hes the codirector of the puxatent river survey and author of in full glory reflected discovering the war of 1812 in the chesapeake. He conduct ad survey of marylands 1812 sites for the National Park service of American Battlefield protection program, served as historian and consultant for the Planning Team for the star spanninglgled bann trails. 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. Hes considered the leading expert on this resource. His book 1812 and the chesapeake a reference gitd the virginia magazine wrote readers will enjoy the year text andbcy engaging style peppered with numerous firsthand accounts. And now to start us off, ralph will start us off and talk about bladensburg. Ralph. Can we give them all a round of applause please. [ applause ] a very good afternoon, everyone. Its wonderful to see such a great turn out. Standing room only. So this is a great turn out. Thank you all for showing up. The big question is why bladensburg . Why was there this big battle at bladensburg . If you understand that 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 and thats over 35 miles from washington, d. C. And it took them four days to march here. That means that the british are coming from the south to try to reach washington. Bladensburg is to the northeast of washington, d. C. Now that means that british had to go further than a direct southern route. Now why would they do . Why would they come all the way this extra distance to come to the bladensburg . The answer is very simple. The british knew that there were Three Bridges that were built across what we call the Anacostia River and they realized if the americans burnt those bridges it would be very difficult for them to get across. So, by going up to bladensburg z was shallow enough that even if the americans burnt that bridge, which interestingly enough the americans did not burn, they would still be able to get across that fort. And so thats why the battle of bladensburg took place where we are right now. u] t hahp hc it was further for them to go but afforded the british a clear opportunity without being inhibited by the burning of these bridges. Now before we get to some more questions i want to make it clear to everybody that it personally believe its a misnomer to call this the battle of bladensburg. And i say that because number one, the battle did not really take place injlhn bladensburg. The british occupied bladensburg. There was minor, minor resistance from maybe a couple of guys that fired a couple of guns. But other than that they came right into this town and took it without any defense whatsoever. So the real battle took the west, across the Anacostia River. If we call it the battle for washington, which truly it was, i think everybody would have a clearer understanding of the significance of this battle. So thats just kind of my opening remarks. Peter. I thinkj 1 one of the great things is the way you discuss so uninhibited the subject, in frankness one of the most embarrassing moments in american history. [ laughter ] were dreading in britain, next year we are dreading the moment when we celebrate or commemorate the battle of waterloo, june of 1815 which over shadows the war of 1812, the reason why we dont know anything about war of 1812 because we were fighting napoleon at that time which was much more serious than the americans. The battle of waterloo, victory in 1815, nine months from now was far more important to us. But we greatly dread the moment when the battle of waterloo is commemorated because the brit are not likely to turn up and not likely to come along to things like this and chat awayy and say things like this. Not much carrying on. Here we are discussing this extraordinary battle of bladensburg. Now, let me say this. I think one of the czd reasons, youll start shouting at me, youre so happy to discuss the battle of bladensburg you feel it led on to extra reports of triumph, victory of the americans in baltimore. I, again, just want to stir you up, i dont think i dont think baltimore can be described as a victory. I think its an outrageous thing to say. Im sorry but its a factual term that the battle of baltimore, the siege, the lifting of the siege of baltimore was a huge victory for americans. Certainly a rebuff, a reverse for the british but american victory is nonsense. It was a british victory with Great Respect of northpointe only a couple of days before they pulled out of the whole baltimore operation, the americans were. Made to withdraw. A much smaller number of americans than british. The british commander had a bigger army than the baltimore general who was in charge of the americans and pushed them back. That was a british victory there. But what happened after that is the british decided it wasnt worth a candle. They were facing overwhelming odds and said guys were not going to go on and of course they failedk÷ to reduce fort mchenry. Which americans consider it a big success but a victory no mistake. Going back to bladensburg, three problems the brits had at bladensburg. They approached bladensburg in an apprehensive way. They were worried about the battle of bladensburg. 50 miles from the ship, approaching the capital of america. A large army on the west bank of the eastern potomac, the anacostia. He had to face the three big problems. One was heat. Now you have no idea but you have an idea, like britain today. The heat was unbelievable. Guys in their red woollen opportuwoollentunics were falling down because of the heat. Bridge which they started crossing my understanding they went across the bridge and then started to get used to the idea of the forge. Anacostia was there. So they had to face this extremely impressive canon fire from the american artillery on the front line which did severe damage. That was a big, big problem. And the third problem, of course, was the problem of the guy on that monument, joshua barely. One cannot detract, whatever one says things about the battle of bladensburg one cannot detract from the fact that Joshua Barney facing the entire victorious british army which run right through the first two american lines faced this quite small force who held them up and took severe british casualties with them for an hour or two they battled. Barney was a serious problem for the brits. Ross himself. So there we are. Three huge problems. Im sorry to say it was an marine disaster. Thank you. Steve . See what i can do. Peter did make this claim about baltimore being a defeat last night and my response to him was fairly simple, scoreboard. [ laughter ] true. And the point was, the important point is that the british did withdraw and the attack was turned away. As for bladensburg, that cannot be described as an american victory bysd w any means. But, i will say im very glad were doing this today and theres been a dedication of the monument this morning because i think we sometimes tend to make all these jokes about bladensburg, its known as the bladensburg races, and we laugh and joke about the soldiers who fought here and, you know, how fast they werehj and all that. Primarily citizen soldiers. They were militia. They were not particularly well trained. They were not well equipped. Certainly not well led. Yet they showed up. They were here. I sometimes wonder how many of us today would show up if an invading army was moving towards capital and i think we need to give them credit for that. And 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 troops well led by general ross with the able admiral coburn at his side, there were opportunities for the americans to turn this attack back before bladensburg, certainly. We missed opportunities where even a modest attack on the British Advance could have turned the british back, ross was rightfully quite nervous advancing with this pretty small British Force with very little artillery away from the ships. He was under strict instructions from london not to do anything that would risk his force. There was certainly risk involved in coming to washington. And even as late as really the 24th, when very belatedly the american commanders including general winder realized the british attack would be coming through bladensburg, even though as ralph mentioned really ultimately it was pretty clear the british would have to come to bladensburg to get to washington because the more southern approach is certainly they couldnt have been able to cross the. Al] river down there because the bridges had been blown they wouldnt be able to get across the river, much wider there than here at bladensburg. If our forces had been placed a little bit earlier, a little bit more wisely, and without so much chaos at the last minute, i think that British Force could have been turned back. Bladensburg, we have to think about some of the missed opportunities but also honor the sacrifice that was made here. Thank you. Mr. George, welcome. And were starting off talking about why the battle of bladensburg . Okay. Well, one of the things that i one of the things that the americans have and the british didnt have was calvary to know what was happening up ahead. And the battle of bladensburg, the americans, directly led to general ross was mortally wounded again because he didnt have calvary to know what was happening a few miles up the road. When general stricker heard down at the peninsula and it was because of key, the word key, of course, means something else. But because of key officers of the 85th regiment that led the advance into bladensburg namely major george brown who was wounded with a musket ball through the pelvis, very painful. Colonel tom thornton who led the 85th across the bridge. And also major wood, all these key officers were wounded here and left bladensburg and so they were not available to lead the advance at baltimore. So the disaster that hnsltimore. So the disaster that happens to the british at baltimore was because of what happened here at bladensburg. So bladensburg and the burning of washington was definitely a disaster and something that should not have happened and i disagree with what is said that washington was burned because of the burning of york and we could talk about that a little bit more. Thats always been said, thats been said for 200 years but theres absolutely nothing in the british correspondence to say we went to washington because we wanted revenge for the burning of york. In fact, the british admiral and chief, vice admiral sir Alexander Cochran wrote to the new secretary of the army, acting secretary monroe a week later and he mentioned the number of places where the americans had burned up in canada, including niagara on the lake and choi i know we have an official here from niagara on the lake. But he never mentioned york. They werent thinking about york. General ross may not have had much knowledge about fact that government buildings of york were burned in april 1813. Let me start off a question and actually, its a very its a very good question and maybe to start off with the rest of the panel on why exactly did the british burn the capitol and if it was not in response to york, why did that happen . That question and well 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. And thats not really correct. If you read good scholarly books they will point out the you the british burnt select public buildings. Their intent was not to come in and totally destroy the stiff washington. They showed restraint. We need to recognize that. Every time we say the britishhz burnt washington were makes it even more interesting when you consider that before the british even got to the capital, which was the first building that they burned, when i say capitol, i mean what the an o not anbtn a. The u. S. Navy had already begun to burn the navy yard and the two other bridges south of bladensburg were on fire. Around 8 20 on the evening of august 24th the bridges were first burnt and then the navy yard. As the british are coming in to washington, d. C. They are already seeing fire. Its not fire from them. Its fire from the United States military. Its trying to keep potential military targets out of the hand of this invading army. So 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 was burnt by the british. I mean, for heavens sake, massive headline in this story is that the british went into washington, burnt the navy yard and they burnt the white house. They burnt the white house. They burnt down congress. They burnt down the parliament, the shrine of democracy in the usa. Why did they do that . Thats 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 except britain and they had to make sure this guy was defeated, wiped off the map and the americans were trading with napoleon and the americans were getting in the way with our war with napoleon. Napoleon was a threat to the entire civilized world. You as well. But to america as well in the long run although we told you louisiana wasnt qui