The 21st Century method.
Posted on 08/31/2014 12:25:10 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Moving from the Capitol, British Navy Rear Admiral George Cockburn, Army Major General Robert Ross, and 150 redcoats marched to the White House. Rocca asked Allman what the Britons' impression of the White House would have been as they walked in the door: "I think that it was a pretty good-sized house, but not a palatial one. No Buckingham Palace. No Versailles. That it was, you know, reasonably well decorated."
The biggest surprise? A dinner set for 40. So the British feasted in the White House dining room before burning the mansion down.
Here, too, the walls survived. But little remains of what was once inside -- what does is an American icon.
The East Room, the largest room in the house, and where Teddy Roosevelt's kids used to roller-skate; where Susan Ford had her senior prom; and more importantly, the room with the great full-length portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart.
"This is the one that Dolley Madison rather famously saved before leaving the White House. She had already packed up state papers, the red velvet drapes that she had had put in the Oval Room. Then, kind of as a last-minute thing, she said, 'Oh, we've got to save General Washington.'"
"And she gave the instructions to get it off the wall. It was bolted on. So they had to pretty much cut the frame open and then lift the canvas out on its stretcher."
As Dolley Madison was busy cramming silverware into her purse, White House servants -- the maitre d' and one of the family's slaves -- rescued the painting. "She was trying to save everything she could," said Allman. "She was leaving her personal things."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
The 21st Century method.
There was no reason, in 1812, the US had to fight a guerrilla war against the British. We weren’t a rebellion, we were a nation that had 40 years to build a military capable of going toe to toe with anybody.
In particular, a guerrilla force, by definition, was incapable of protecting the national capital.
After some initial and highly shameful reverses, the Army recovered and performed quite well under Scott, Brown and others in open field battle against British regulars. The US Navy showed throughout the war that they were perfectly capable of going toe to toe with the RN, given roughly equal forces.
And, of course, Jackson took an outnumbered incredibly motley force and nevertheless handed the Brits one of the worst defeats in their entire history.
IOW, there was no reason at all for the Brits to have been a “superior trained and equipped force” other than our own initial hubris.
We, BTW, learned that lesson, and have never since performed shamefully in combat in the same way.
Ah, you sound like you are not fuzzy on your history, so I will defer to your take on it, with one distinction: the Battle of New Orleans was not fought open-field style. The US Army established positions behind fortified positions (such as cottonbales) and slaughtered the incoming troops.
Quite right. However, Andy’s maneuvering was what forced the British into a position where they had to attack a fortification.
Had someone else been in command the Brits would almost certainly have taken the city.
“And, of course, Jackson took an outnumbered incredibly motley force and nevertheless handed the Brits one of the worst defeats in their entire history.”
I had a least two motley forebears at the Battle of New Orleans. One was in the militia, the other was a pirate who sailed with Jean Lafitte. LaFitte and company brought cannon to the party.
Jackson’s victory was helped considerably by British officers forgetting to bring along ladders to storm the American wall.
Dang! Can never find a battalion of redcoats when we need them...
Sorry, it was a stalemate. We went into the war with conquest of Canada as a, possibly the, primary goal. We obviously failed in that. The war ended with status quo pro ante as the terms, which is pretty much the definition of stalemate.
For what you say to have occurred, it would have required America to lose and be invaded and conquered.
It’s about time to burn out Washington again.
“Jackson’s victory was helped considerably by British officers forgetting to bring along ladders to storm the American wall.”
That wall was constructed largely of cotton bales IIRC.
Our current food-nazi first lady would burn ALL cream-filled, chocolate-y, heavily-iced, eagerly-eaten lunch-bag yummies if she could, no doubt about it.
Leni
We were not the empire we are today.
A lot of folks here recall Eisenhower’s military industrial complex and Washington’s no foreign entanglements speeches.
Yet at the same time we pound our chests and talk about nuking people.
Where am I missing the disconnect?
"Fearing an American counterattack, the British occupation of Washington lasted only a day."
Poppycock.
God sent a tornado and drove the British out in terror.
And the torrential rains put the fires out.
The Tornado That Saved WashingtonThe day of the invasion had been hot, 100 degrees. With much of the city aflame the next day, British soldiers kept moving through, lighting more fires. They didn't notice the darkening skies, the thunder and lightning. City residents knew a bad storm was on its way and quickly took shelter. The British, though, had no idea how bad a D.C. storm could get.
The clouds began to swirl and the winds kicked up. A tornado formed in the center of the city and headed straight for the British on Capitol Hill. The twister ripped buildings from their foundations and trees up by the roots. British cannons were tossed around by the winds. Several British troops were killed by falling structures and flying debris.
The rain continued for two hours, dousing the flames. The British decided it was time to leave."
People, reasonably enough, are appalled by ISIS and want them stopped.
In practical terms, given the realities of military capabilities, that means the US will lead any attempt to stop them. Or no such attempt will be made.
If you want us to not be “the policeman of the world,” a sentiment I can sympathize if not necessarily agree with, you have to accept the fact that there will be nobody to stop Putin’s expansionism or ISIS, or a host of other problems that will pop up the minute America is seen as no longer engaged.
How many Americans are willing to accept the real consequences of a true withdrawal from foreign entanglements?
Hear! Hear!
Madison and Congress entered the war with the goal of “conquering Canada?”
Is that how they teach it in Canada?
The question of stalemate would be whether the Brits returned to seizing and impressing Americans and ships on the high sea as they were doing before the war. if not then a victory was achieved
I presume they teach it that way in Canada, possibly because it happens to be the truth, or part of the truth. There were of course, as in just about any war, multiple causes and goals, but the conquest of Canada was certainly one.
Particularly in the West, where for fairly obvious reasons impressment and such wasn’t as big an issue. Much more important was their anger over British/Canadian encouragement of Indian raids on American settlers, which they wished to stop by invasion and/or conquest of Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hawk
Thomas Jefferson: “The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent.— Letter to William Duane. vi, 75. Ford ed., ix, 366. (M., Aug. 1812.)
Thomas Jefferson, of course, here shows his complete ignorance of war.
Hah!! That song was what I thought of when I started reading this article!
No, it was Cockburn! ;^)
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.