About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, September 14, 2017


Just Finished Reading: When Britain Burned the White House – The 1814 Invasion of Washington by Peter Snow (FP: 2013)

My knowledge of the War of 1812 was, until I read this informative and entertaining little (239 page) book, practically non-existent. It is, as far as I know, a largely forgotten and ignored conflict over here. I understand that its profile is much bigger in the US. I suppose that I get some points for knowing that the conflict actually occurred. I did, however, think that it was over and done with during the year of 1812 (hence the name). So I was a little surprised with the books sub-title. I was also rather surprised as to the extent of the Whitehouse fire. I believed, rather erroneously, that a British fire had merely scorched the edifice of the Whitehouse rather than completely destroyed the interior. I also had no idea who actually won this particular spat. It seems that it was, in the end, pretty much a draw although it seems that both sides claimed a victory of sorts. We Brits walked away after ‘teaching the Colonials a lesson’ and the USA fought off a world Imperial Power with effectively a ‘rag-tag army of volunteers’. Naturally things were rather more complicated.

Of course a major problem with the War of 1812 was the timing. Being already embroiled in a fight to the death with Napoleonic France an attack on Canada and a declaration of war by the ex-Colonies was felt very much like a stab in the back. Unfortunately we really didn’t have the resources to apply to the problem until Napoleon capitulated and was sent off the exile. With the needed resources now available a much larger force was sent across the Atlantic to ‘give the Americans a drubbing’. In true British style, of course, we sent too small a force to do very much and ordered them to be very careful not to be beaten and humiliated again as they had been in the War of Independence. But, this was the army that had repeated defeated the best of the French generals in Europe and beyond so wasn’t going to pussyfoot around. Determine to make a mark the set about landing troops and basically causing as much trouble as possible. The question was, of course, where could the Brits get the best propaganda victory for the least outlay in gold or blood? The two most tempting objectives where Baltimore and Washington. Baltimore was an economic target but Washington, still under construction, proved too tempting. The idea of taking the enemy capital was just too much to ignore. After facing and defeating several militia armies Washington was indeed taken and selected political targets burned to the ground – all against the express orders of the British commander located back at the landing point. But with the enemy scattered and the capital in flames he could hardly court-martial the hero of the hour. But was the act enough to force the US back to the negotiation table? Maybe just one more example of British power would do it. On to Baltimore! Time was now against the British and Baltimore was a much tougher nut to crack. Already well defended its defences grew even stronger by the day. The shame of Washington had turned to anger and hundreds of men flocked to defend the city every day. But this merely proved to the British that the burning of Baltimore would be all the sweeter. Of course it was not to be. The defences when they were met proved too formidable and without naval support, held at bay by Fort McHenry and others, the small British army could not advance without taking unacceptable losses. Withdrawal was the only sensible option. Soon after agreements were made and the unnecessary war was over – but not before the abortive attack on New Orleans had failed miserably.  

Until recently my knowledge of early American history has been frankly pitiful. Thanks to be two recent history books I certainly know a lot more – admittedly from a very low base! This book in particular was an easy read despite its general unfamiliarity. The author, who I ‘know’ from his TV appearances often alongside his historian son, has a wonderful voice and can convey sometimes complex events with a breezy exciting prose that can leave you breathless as each chapter ends. If, like me, you were ignorant of this rather unusual conflict you could do a lot worse than by starting to address that ignorance here. Recommended.

6 comments:

Stephen said...

I'm not surprised the "War" gets washed out by the Napoleonic wars...that was the entire reason for the conflict, really, with American shipping being frustrated or attacked by both sides. (Also, the US wanted Canada...does this mention the invasion?)

CyberKitten said...

The US frustration with the economic blockade of French ports as well as the 'pressing' of American sailors into the Royal Navy where both mentioned as causes of the war. The invasion, or attempted invasion, of Canada was mentioned in passing but mostly I think to illustrate how ineffective both sides were fighting prior to the arrival of serious British military units released from fighting Napoleon.

VV said...

This is about the extent of what I know about the War of 1812. There are markers around here where battles occurred, the Battle of Black Rock, and the Battle of Scajaquada Creek. I should probably make an effort to learn about them while I'm here. I'm a frequent visitor to old Fort Niagara, but have yet to make it over to Fort Erie.

Mudpuddle said...

i read a bio of Stephen Decatur once... exciting and edifying...

Brian Joseph said...

Great commentary on this book.

I think that The War of 1812 is even obscure to many Americans. I have read a bit about the conflict and it still a little difficult for me to wrap my head around it. "Unusual"is the right word for it.

CyberKitten said...

@ VV: I'm afraid that neither of those battles are mentioned in this book.

@ Mudpuddle: I've just been reading up about Mr Decatur. VERY impressive. I need to read more about the Barbary Pirates!

@ Brian: Thanks. The War of 1812 was odd from both sides. I think it changed our relationship forever and, as far as I know, led directly to the US having a standing army rather than relying on State Militia.