Maryland Shines Spotlight on War of 1812

The Wall St Journal (free) ^ | Aug. 29, 2014 | SCOTT CALVERT CONNECT

[Pharmboy]

State Has Awarded $5.5 Million in Grants for Celebrations, Research and Education

A historian gives cutlass lessons to children at Fort McHenry in Baltimore on Thursday.
Melissa Golden for The Wall Street Journal

BALTIMORE—Maryland officials are on a campaign to elevate the profile of the War of 1812, a historically unpopular conflict that ended in a draw with Britain and has long been overshadowed by the Revolutionary and Civil wars.

The state is planning a weeklong festival next month to mark the 200th anniversary of the city's defense in 1814, which inspired Francis Scott Key to pen the poem that later became the lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner," the national anthem.

State officials also have awarded $5.5 million in grants for celebrations, educational programs and research, hoping to generate a lasting patriotic buzz about Maryland's starring role in a war that largely has been written off as a historical footnote.

"This is not just about having a party and shutting it down for another hundred years," said Bill Pencek, executive director of Maryland's War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission. He said the state is counting on an enduring tourism boost.

If it is recalled at all, the War of 1812, which ended in 1815, is most often remembered for the British burning of Washington and the White House. But some of the lowest and highest points in the conflict actually occurred in nearby Maryland.

The error-filled collapse of American troops in Bladensburg, Md., in August 1814 gave the British easy entrée to the nation's capital. By contrast, the successful defense of Baltimore amid the British bombardment at Fort McHenry helped fuel American patriotism when an oversized American flag stood tall following the siege.

[DeaconBenjamin]

the battle was fought after the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent, thus it had no impact on the outcome.

Wrong. The Treaty of Ghent declared status quo ante -- everything the way it was before the war began. However, the Brits and the US had different interpretations of that as applied to Louisiana. Britain and its Spanish allies viewed the purchase of Louisiana from Napoleon as illegal, so the British intended to seize Louisiana and hold it for the Spanish.

IIRC, according to Robert Remini, the Spanish were preparing to send their officials to New Orleans to govern Louisiana in March 1815, when they received news of the US victory at New Orleans.

[DeaconBenjamin]

Ambushed two weeks after the Treaty of Ghent

So the British Army was out for a leisurely stroll into New Orleans when the US forces jumped up from cotton bales behind the Rodriguez Canal, and ambushed them? Or is your reality that the US attacked the British forces?

[DeaconBenjamin]

it was by the end of the war fought with regulars. By 1814, the militia system was so discredited that the military leadership trained and organized our forces on European lines.

I gather from your comment that you did not read this article, and have no familiarity with the Battle of New Orleans. Your comment may apply to the Niagara front, but not to Baltimore or New Orleans.

[albertabound]

the thirteen colonies were British territory prior to the war of independence yet you folks declare it an American victory over the Brits...bit of a double standard eh.

http://wn.com/arrogant_worms~war_of_1812_bicentennial_by_moi

[albertabound]

who gives a crap...the war was over..

[hal ogen]

LIB asshat maryland ( THE Freak state) disgraces all history by being a "sanctuary" state for illegal invaders and for LIBs.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Huh?

Basically Americans declared themselves independent and wanted to get away from Britain and have them recognize that fact. So in that sense, yes, they were “Americans” (usually identifying with their colony/state) even if they undoubtedly called themselves American-British much of the time until it was won. I personally call them “rebels” because that was what it was. And I don’t have to worry about any particulars such as what they used, even “patriots” which is a relative term.

Canada was a territory of Britain and in no sense had any independence in any form until at least 1867.

[chulaivn66]

Correct. However if you were to poll the spectators you would be disappointed when you discover the number of folks that make that connection.

[the OlLine Rebel]

No, the treaty was signed, that’s all. It took months for anything to travel over the ocean and NEITHER New Orleans nor British forces in the Gulf new anything about a treaty.

So even if Britain consented and the treaty could zoom over in 2 weeks, it was not ratified by the other country, either. It still would not be officially over.

Even if the combatants had some inkling of this, the battle may have made a difference. It may have made the Brits angrier and tear it all up (which still would take much time to make clear). Or make them give up altogether.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Just as Massachusetts would - and basically did already in the so-called 1812 war.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“militia system was so discredited that the military leadership trained and organized our forces on European lines.”

This was already the case. But the military was tiny and hardly financed. The problem did remain that too many “Jeffersonian” Democratic-Republican attitudes prevailed which remained scared to death of a standing army in addition. Washington had dispensed with that idea long since (it’s a myth that the AmRevWar was really a militia victory; mostly they were failures) and influenced many that the permanent army was necessary, which was largely the Federalist stance - as well as the fact that they preferred the Constitution as a stronger basis for government than the old Articles.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Actually he’s partly right. Baltimore had plenty of regulars - not necessarily the federal types you think of, but more “regulated”.

The most impressive thing about the Baltimore campaign, lost in the hooplah over the “anthem” not made so for more than a century, is the gigantic effort put in by the locals to entrench against the British army. 5 miles of earthworks manned to the inch (probably lots of evil personal firearms, too)? That is what scared them off ultimately, when they could not get naval back-up, even though the Brits had pushed up to Balto itself.

[credo 2]

Thanks for posting!

We went to Chestertown today for the prelude to the battle of Caulk’s Field. Saw the parade at 10:30, the artifacts on display, and the “Battle of Caulk’s Field” presentation by Dr. Charles Neimeyer and Dr. Julie Schablitsky, chief archaeologist from University of MD. Dr. Neimeyer is from the Marines; both are writing books which will be published soon. It was very interesting and included a power-point presentation with maps and pictures of where the artifacts were found and the battle plan. Parker bled out on the battlefield from a nicked femoral artery and Byron gave part of the eulogy in London. (They took his body to a lot of places before they got back to London. It was ironic - someone with such high connections, dying on the Eastern Shore of MD.)

For anyone who is interested:
Sunday, August 31 is the Reenactment at Caulk’s Field Battlefield.
10:00am the site is open; marching band begins at 9:45
10:15 The Ship’s Company Chanteymen on stage
11:00 Formal Military Ceremony: American and British
11:45 American Artillery Demonstration
12:00 229thh MD National Guard Army Band
12:45 Flag Unfurling
1:15 Dance Performance
1:45 Re-enactor Troops Assemble on the Battlefield
2:00 Battle Re-enactment
2:50 Re-enactor Troops Pass and Review
3:00 Drawing: Ravens Tickets
3:00 Lions of Bluegrass
4:00 Site closes to the public

[the OlLine Rebel]

Do they do this every year? Sounds cool and it would be closer than my beloved Monmouth.

[credo 2]

Not this particular event, i.e. Battle of Caulk’s Field; the WSJ article says that it is funded by a grant and names different locations where the events are being held re the war on the water, Annapolis and Baltimore.

Chestertown does have a Chestertown Tea Party around the end of May, I think. It is well advertized and for Sat they have a re-enactment of throwing the tea into the harbor after political discussions through the town and to the harbor. Street theater. The town is packed with vendors and many people come from “the other side” (of the Bay Bridge.) Do a search for it for the date and schedule.

Maryland has been doing celebrations of different events in counties having to do with the war of 1812. If I can find a site for the state, I will send it to you later.

[Hiddigeigei]

“militia system was so discredited that the military leadership trained and organized our forces on European lines.”

New Hampshire and Massachusetts militiamen defeated the detachment of Burgoyne’s army (and their reinforcements) at the Battle of Bennington. The battle was a decisive victory; it reduced Burgoyne's army in size by almost 1,000 men, led his Indian support to largely abandon him, and deprived him of needed supplies such as cavalry and draft horses and food, all factors that contributed to Burgoyne's eventual surrender at Saratoga.

The militia was a decisive element during the battle of Saratoga (read what Riedesel, the wife of the German general who was captured there had to say.) A militia man shot General Simon Fraser which stopped the British charge. American riflemen shot British soldiers from getting water from the river. The militiaman, armed with a rifle, would (could) not stand up to a bayonet charge, as proved at the Battle of Bladensburg. Once this limitation was recognized, they were very effective. Under Morgan and Nathanael Greene (both former militia leaders), they played a decisive roll at the Battle of Cowpens and defeated a British army led by Banastre Tarleton. You might also like to read what Col. George Hanger, 4th Baron Coleraine, commander of its light dragoons under Tarleton, had to say about the American rifleman in his book (Advice To All Sportsmen, Farmers And Gamekeepers.)

In the War of 1812, two teenage riflemen were credited with killing General Robert Ross and thus delaying the British advance on Baltimore long enough to give the Americans time to entrench.

During the Civil War, the Virginia militia was the bases for the Southern cavalry that played Hell with the Northern troops in the Shenandoah Valley.

[the OlLine Rebel]

First of all, you are not quoting me, but the post to which I replied.

Second, while militia certainly had their roles and remained in the RevWar forces, it simply remains that their importance is overstated. Often they were doing their own thing, which often involved running. Riflemen were not all militia, many State troops, and not all militia were equipped with rifles. They carried what they had, as did all too often the more regular troops. Most often, that would be smooth-bore muskets.

As to Cowpens, militia were told all they need do was hold the front line for 2-3 rounds, then fool the dragoons into thinking they were - as usual, which is key - running away. Into the lines of regulars who would end it.

[Nailbiter]

ping for later read

[Hiddigeigei]

Often they were doing their own thing, which often involved running.

That was not exactly the impression Baroness Riedesel (the wife of an enemy General) had. I quote:

"We passed through boundless forests and magnificent tracts of country, which, however, were abandoned by all the inhabitants, who fled before us, and reinforced the army of the American general, Gates. In the sequel this cost us dearly, for every one of them was a soldier by nature, and could shoot very well; besides, the thought of fighting for their fatherland and their freedom, inspired them with still greater courage."

It was New Hampshire and Massachusetts militiamen at the Battle of Bennington who defeated the British force and killed Lieutenant Colonel Baum.

Many of the "Bladensburg runners", who fled before the British regulars managed to reinforce the defense of Baltimore several days later.

True, not all of the militia were riflemen. I was thinking of Tim Murphy, who shot General Fraser (a man Arnold said was worth a regiment). I was thinking of Daniel Wells and Henry McComas who shot General Ross and ended the attack on Baltimore. I was thinking of my ancestors, Michael, who enlisted in Captain Hugh Stephenson's company in 1775 and marched to Boston. He reenlisted in one of the rifle companies raised in Berkeley in 1776. He was captured at Fort Washington and died on one of the infamous British prison ships.

The militia at Cowpens were largely Morgan riflemen who were asked by Morgan to fire twice and then retreat behind the regulars and reload because they didn't have bayonets and their rifles were slower to load than muskets. They effectively took out many of the British officers. According to Col. George Hanger, a rifleman nearly got Tarleton earlier from over 400 feet.