The night Britain burned down the White House

I dont know whether this is the correct forum - but here goes , . If not then I hope the Mod would move it .

When I first read this , I couldn't help but feel pride in those British soldiers who took part in the burning the White House of those REVOLTING colonial's Washington . Besides the past cannot be undone, not even for those who wish to do so.
btw - I'm one of those Britons who reject the idea of any "special relations " with those devious -treacherous - scoundrels in Washington
----

"The night Britain burned down the White House and stole the President's clothes: The forgotten invasion which shows the special relationship could be a LOT worse
By Peter Snow (historian)


" Just imagine foreign troops invading London, defeating the British Army in Hyde Park then marching on Buckingham Palace.

The Queen and Prince Philip order their most precious belongings piled into a lorry and are whisked off to safety before the enemy break in and burn the place down.

Unthinkable? Well, that’s just what the British did to the White House in Washington nearly 200 years ago.
-------What’s more, in the expectation that their army would beat the British, the American President and his wife had ordered a slap-up meal prepared for 40 guests. They’d been counting on celebrating a victory. Instead they found themselves fleeing for their lives.

When the British invaders in their blood-stained uniforms burst into the White House, they found the table elegantly laid for dinner, meat roasting on spits and the President’s best wine on the sideboard.

Delightedly, they tucked in. One young officer said of the President’s Madeira wine: ‘Never was nectar more grateful to the palates of the gods . . .’ Afterwards he nipped up to the President’s bedroom and swapped his sweaty tunic for a smartly-ironed presidential shirt.


One of his comrades bundled up the silver White House cutlery in the tablecloth. The British commander then calmly told his men to pile the chairs on to the tables and torch the building.

Before the night was done they also burned both houses of Congress, the War Office, the State Department and the Treasury. It is the only time in U.S. history that outsiders have raided the capital.
---
To say the least, the burning of the White House marked a low point in Anglo-American relations — and seems all the more relevant in the light of pressure on the ‘special relationship’ following the recent vote by British MPs against military action in Syria.

As a result of this, senior British military officials have been barred from planning meetings and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry praised France, still supportive of military action, as America’s ‘oldest ally’. It’s almost like old times.

The attack on Washington was one of the most audacious military enterprises ever and the single most destructive act in the almost forgotten ‘War of 1812’, which actually lasted nearly three years.

America had declared war on Britain over control of the seas — partly to do with trade restrictions resulting from our war with France — but also because it had ambitions to control Canada.

Victory? The night before the White House was burned, President James Madison had laid in a celebratory meal, thinking they had beaten the British
Victory? The night before the White House was burned, President James Madison had laid in a celebratory meal, thinking they had beaten the British

But Britain was occupied with the conflict with Napoleon: only when the French Emperor was exiled to Elba in the spring of 1814 did the British Government feel free to turn on the Americans with real vigour.

Some 4,500 grizzled British veterans, who’d fought under Wellington and defeated the French in Spain, arrived in Chesapeake Bay near Washington DC in the full heat of summer. Most of them had been looking forward to going home, not crossing the Atlantic to fight America.

One dashing young officer, Captain Harry Smith, had to wave goodbye to his 16-year-old Spanish wife when he was dispatched as a staff officer with the task force.

Its popular commander, Major General Robert Ross, had helped Wellington win the Peninsular war. He had a reputation for courage verging on recklessness. His orders were to give the Americans ‘a good drubbing’.

If Ross had any doubts about what that meant, his Royal Navy comrade in arms, Rear Admiral George Cockburn, a fiery and ruthless old sea-dog, had none. He urged Ross to land the army, march the 50 miles to Washington and burn the place to the ground.

Cockburn had already been busy for a year raiding and burning American towns in the Chesapeake area. To the Americans he was an ‘infamous scoundrel and notorious incendiary’. They offered a reward for his capture dead or alive and ‘$500 for each of his ears’.

When the news reached Washington that a large British army had joined up with Cockburn, there was pandemonium. Families piled their furniture on carts and headed out of town.

President James Madison was one of America’s founding fathers, a studious, severe-looking man who usually wore black. One visitor said he looked like a schoolmaster dressed for a funeral.

-----

read more here


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-stole-Presidents-clothes.html#ixzz2kkXO5buZ

For the record , I'm an unapologetic opponent to Washington's foreign policies + the so-called "US/UK "special relations" -- (wink)

 

LOL, it would seem that Messrs Cockburn and Ross are not the only incendiaries around.

The responses (if any) from the other side of the pond should be illuminating.

 

Whats the big deal with the responses?

 

I don't understand your question. The information provided in the article concerned is factual, but presented in a manner not entirely complimentary of the colonial Americans. Most Americans tend to be a bit nationalistic, quite sensitive to even implicit criticism of their society/history, and the War of 1812 was not exactly a roaring success - so it is not entirely unreasonable to expect some interesting responses. Would you not agree?

 

I understand the intent but most know how it ended. The birth of a new Nation.... No fuss.

 

With respect, the War of 1812 had nothing to do with the birth of any nation. You are perhaps confusing the conflict with the American War of Independence - some 30 years earlier. The US declared war upon Great Britain in 1812, ostensibly because of trade restriction brought about by Britain's war with France, but one of the hidden war aims was the annexation of what is now Canada (there were three unsuccessful attempts by the Americans at invading the territory). It was an unsuccessful conflict which achieved none of the American aims.

 

No sir, The Nation was at birth before and after the war of 1812. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Louis and Clark in 1804....Creating National boundaries, Spanish territories, surveying and the likes...States being formed. Heck, Arizona became a State in 1912.

Takes awhile to Birth a Nation.....Never the less, it was a Happy ending. Like I said, No fuss.

 

You are confusing the birth of a nation with the grow (or expansion) of a nation.

 

Yeah, well..we sicked one of our tornados on you brits and that turned the tide. http://www.weatherbook.com/1814.htm

 

Must be Britians national pride day. My condolences for the need to travel back to 1812 to find the most recent example of due pride. There's always hope for next year.

 

My favorite part is the Battle of New Orleans. That's when an American idiot (who was nonetheless smart enough to defeat the British) who later became President, sent British fools to their ignominious graves in utter defeat. The best part is when the British Empire later came begging to America for salvation following WWI. Personally, I would have told them to go to hell. We could have avoided Hitler (Bertie's favorite), and WWII.

 

I don't think we could have avoided Hitler with or without the war. In terms of political organization, Hitler was probably one of the top-5 statesmen of all time. What might have changed however was Hitler's ideology. In other words, he wouldn't have blamed the Jews for getting America into the war. He might not have even recognized "Jewish Influence" inside Germany(his book hints as much as he only became an anti-Semitic around the same time period)

Our involvement in the war and the reparations, those unfortunately set a chain of events that would make a more destructive war.

But, thinking solely of geopolitics and not lives, we have much to thank Adolf Hitler for.(Or more aptly, that fool Winston Churchill). Had the British sought a mutual alliance with the Germans, it would be possible that England is still the world superpower and we, a mere English nation. The war with the Germans absolutely crushed Britain financially, militarily and socially. It propelled the Dollar over the Pound and the rest is history(as well as the present)

Our decision to join the Allies was the "third best" decision we could've made. Third best in that we unfortunately allowed Stalin and the Soviets to rampage for another 30 years unchecked. This was further compounded with the decision to create the muhajeeden "freedom fighters".

The second best decision would have been to join the Axis. It's only logical, considering we were already allies with Japan. It would have secured the Western seas from any outside influence and had we allied with Germany, both Britain and Soviet Russia would be choked off, allowing for our present hegemony over world affairs(Just, you know without terrorists involved lol)

For those who say "what about the Jews"? It's quite simple. We kicked Soviet ass after the war, we would've kicked German ass after the war(probably a lot easier and a lot less trying than the Soviets too). It just would've been geopolitically favorable to prop up Hitler compared to Stalin.

In reality, beyond the propaganda, Stalin was the worst monster in the world. He enslaved his own men and killed those who dared to defy. He tramped all over Russia and was a brutal tyrant. At least Hitler had that "for Germany" thing going for him. Stalin didn't care for Russia, Stalin cared for Stalin.

The best decision? STFO. The war would've resulted in much the same outcome. The Germans/Britons/Russians would have fought to the death, and if an unfavorable outcome(and in reality all of them were in some level unfavorable as we can see from British hostility against their English Brethren) appeared, we could have easily taken em out.

In such a scenario, we would have diplomatically tied any aid to Japan towards a peaceful resolution to the Asian Problem. I think if we moved in concrete steps, we could have ensured a ceasefire. For the American Empire and the Japanese Empire could have ruled the Western Seas as partners.

There really wasn't a "bad" decision for us per say in hindsight. Only, the best ones involved defeating not Japan unilaterally but Russia.

A Russian Capitulation as well as a British One. Although we accomplished both goals in the end, how much simpler would it have been for world peace had we joined the AXIS or let the opposing powers simply croak.

 

Wow, the war of 1812, huh? Well good luck with that.

 

We could have avoided any of these complexities by entering WWI on the other side. Better yet, we could have joined Germany and Russia prior to WWI to develop Eurasia beginning with rail infrastructure. That woud have ended British maritime imperialism.

 

One can go on forever with fictional fantasies - of what "could/couldn't haves" - "might have beens - perhapses and what ifs "


One can only go by historical records of what happened - happened - cant be undone .
Read my siggy abt God undoing the past.


Its also worth noting that most of todays anti-British Americans are not descended from the Colonials ("patriots but from much later - 19thn century immigrants .

see this :


The American War of Independence: The Rebels and the Redcoats

By Professor Richard Holmes - reviews the course of the American Revolutionary War, and discusses whether American independence was inevitable from the moment that the first shots were fired.
--

The War of Independence plays such an important part in American popular ideology that references to it are especially prone to exaggeration and oversimplification. And two uncomfortable truths about it - the fact that it was a civil war (perhaps 100,000 loyalists fled abroad at its end), and that it was also a world war (the Americans could scarcely have won without French help) - are often forgotten.


Here, however, I have done my best to describe this long and complex war in terms that people will find readily comprehensible, but that avoid some of the Hollywood-style simplifications and inaccuracies that have gained so much currency over the years.
Breaking the connection
In one sense it was always a war between cousins, and the long and tangled history of the 'special relationship' between Britain and America, as well as the notion of the unbreakable connections between both, bear witness to a link that at one time was very close indeed.

The war often known in Europe as the Seven Years War was known in North America as the French and Indian War. It involved several countries, with France and Britain on opposing sides, and North America was one of its many theatres of operations. It was ended by the 1763 Treaty of Paris, by which the French ceded territory to Britain in North America and elsewhere. In addition to this success, James Wolfe's victory at Quebec had helped secure Canada for the British Crown, and the 13 British colonies further south seemed safe from any threat that might once have been posed by the French and their Native American allies.

Britain and her American colonies at this time seemed very close, both culturally and politically - and it is remarkable how this rosy picture changed so quickly.
In part the deterioration of relations between Britain and her American colonies - which eventually led to the War of Independence - stemmed from a logical British attempt to make the colonies contribute more to the cost of their own defence[/B].

It was also partly the result of the desire of some successful merchants in the colonies to break free of controls imposed by the pro-British elite, and from British political miscalculations that saw foreign policy oscillate between harshness and surrender.

Another factor was the work of radical politicians and propagandists - such as Sam Adams and Paul Revere - who envisaged a break with Britain when many of their countrymen still hoped that it might be avoided.


The descent into armed conflict between patriot (anti-British) and loyalist (pro-British) sympathisers was gradual. Events like the Boston 'Massacre' of 1770, when British troops fired on a mob that had attacked a British sentry outside Boston's State House, and the Boston 'tea-party' of 1773, when British-taxed tea was thrown into the harbour, marked the downward steps. Less obvious was the take-over of the colonial militias - which had initially been formed to provide local defence against the French and the Native Americans - by officers in sympathy the the American patrios/rebels, rather than by those in sympathy with pro-British loyalists/Tories.


As all these elements of conflict came into play, the British commander in chief in North America was Lieutenant General Thomas Gage. He had long experience of the American continent, and had a beautiful and intelligent American wife, but he was under pressure from London to lance what seemed to be a painful boil.

read more :http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml

cheers.

 

fun fact


The American national anthem comes from the war of 1812/the US victory at Fort McHenry, oddly enough the attitude the nation had by the end of the war was a victory

 

No.

A more important factor was British troops stationed on the American frontier ostensibly to keep the French and Indians out, but actually to keep the colonists in. The American impulse had long been to develop the entire continent. The British impulse was imperial control. The fundamental struggle had long been between renaissance humanism and imperial oppression. There should be no confusion. Just read the Declaration of Independence. It's all right there: "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." It was about murder, not about contributing to defense, etc. What you're saying here, in my opinion, is almost completely irrelevent, save the part about "break[ing] free of controls imposed by the pro-British elite."

 

The US and UK are, barring the immigration differences, the same group of people, except that some liked their government of 250 years ago and some of them didn't so they made their own government. There's no reason for you to not be good friends, you simply had a difference of opinion as to how to govern yourselves.

 

The war of independence was not about freedom and democracy as so many people seem to think.

The war of 1812 was an act of defence on our part against those who traded with the menace of Europe.

The only real shame was the fact that the Indians lost the most and continued to do so. They'd of been better off if the US hadn't rebelled.

 

Its unlikely that native amercans would have suffered the genocide/ethnic cleansing as occurred after the Colonial revolution For example this + many others


1863 Site of Native American Ethnic Cleansing Uncovered in California (June 2013)

Archaeologists say they’ve stumbled upon a grim page in American history: the site of the 1863 Owens Lake massacre. The Los Angeles Times provides a history lesson: The Paiute Indians occupied land some 200 miles north of LA that proved desirable to an influx of ranchers in the mid 1800s. The Owens Valley Indian War broke out in 1861, but a seminal moment occurred on March 19, 1863: Settlers and soldiers battled with the Paiutes, who tried to flee their attackers by swimming into the lake, but were thwarted by a strong wind; nearly three dozen of them drowned or were shot. The tale of that day remains, but the exact location was lost.


That’s in part because officials diverted the Owens River in 1913 in order to feed LA’s water needs, reports Grist; by the middle of the next decade, Owens Lake was no more. But heavy winds and rains in 2009 may have helped return bullets, buttons, and Native American artifacts to the surface; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power archaeologists found them during a survey last year. But the discovery is spurring a small controversy: The dry lake bed fuels toxic dust storms, and DWP has been charged with mitigating that with shallow flooding—at what is now thought to be the massacre site. The Paiutes want the area left untouched; DWP agrees, and is in discussions on how to make that happen. “We take this personally,” says a tribal historic preservation officer. “My grandmother told me about this massacre and she knew the people it happened to. This ground, and the artifacts in it, is who we are.”

http://politicalblindspot.com/1863-site-of-native-american-ethnic-cleansing-uncovered-in-california/

Trail of Tears Facts 7: Indian Removal Act

In 1830, the Indian removal act was signed by President Andrew Jackson. It was used to reverse the right of respecting the Indian people in US. It was used by the government to move the Indian tribes from Deep South to Oklahoma reservation




.. Not to mention the atrocities committed by the North against the South in their Civil War.

 

And ended up under the control of a home grown powerful Financial elite ..

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

You're only as "free " as yr ruling elite permit you to be .+ you're no threat to their racket. (wink)

.....

 

I realize that many people see Americans as being boorish in that way, but I submit that we are not that different than many other nations in that respect. It is true that we tend to teach the myth to students in school and cling to them as adults.

The War of 1812 is a great case in point. The US lost that war, although our schoolbook histories try and hide that fact and a lot of professional historians have trouble coming to grips with it as well.

The US declared war on Britain, because of the British habit of raiding American merchant shipping and pressing American sailors into service in the Royal Navy and the British East India Company.

At the end of the war, the US essentially made a deal that curtailed the practice, but acknowledged the hegemony of the Royal Navy in the Western Hemisphere. Of course, the Monroe Doctrine came to mean something quite different by the end if the 19th century, as American power had significantly increased, and Britain was locked in an arms race with the European imperial powers.

 

I believe it is more illuminating that Madison and his republican doctrine got into that situation.

 

US history in the 19th century has a whole litany of oppression towards the natives.

The UK tried to put the Ohio valley aside for the Indians which is one of the factors that led to their insurrection.
Albeit it was the prize during the seven years war which many of the colonials were interested in settling.


I find the rhetoric regarding the USA's founding to be somewhat hypocritical.

 

Are you under the impression that the situation is any diffrent in the UK?