That Time Britian Burned Down the White House

Abstract

It was once said by political consultant Bernard Baruch “[that] political, economic, and racial forces have developed which we have not yet learned to understand or control. If we are ever to master these forces, make certain that government will belong to the people, not the people to the government, we must somehow learn from the experiences of the past.” When studying history and subsequently government, it’s discovered that many events and actions taken by people in power are actually those of a recurring cycle that has been and will be repeated for generations. No governmental body is perfect, despite what patriots will claim, and the faults of politicians are to be expected; however, through countless years of study, it has come to my attention (as it has probably come to others as well) that many blunders and mistakes made by powerful persons in government are repeated offenses that have already previously ensued. It is taught to young children by their parents that one should always learn from their mistakes; that as one grows, they should learn from life’s lessons and strive to become better as a result of past grievances. The same can be said for governments, but this has not been the case- especially in terms of the federal government of the United States of America. While not as old as the countries that reside in Europe to the east or the nations apart of Asia towards our west, the United States of America is full of rich history that has shaped the foundations of its constitutional federal representative democracy. However, not all of the events in the nation’s history have shaped the United States in a positive way. The War of 1812, fought between the newly formed and independent United States, the kingdom of Great Britain, and the British colony Canada during the years 1812- 1815, was one such event where due to an abundance of blunders and grevious mistakes made by the American federal government, the capital city of Washington D.C. was subsequently ransacked and burnt to the ground. This paper thus examens the unwise decision making of the newly formed American government that led up to and caused the “Sack of D.C.”, and the events that followed the political foreign policy blunder that was the War of 1812; and whether or not the contemporary United States federal government learned from these events.

An Infant America and the Sparks of War

I. The Presidency of James Madison

According to Pulitzer Prize- winning historian Samuel Eliot Morison on the new democratic American government system, “... no federal or republican government had ever worked on so large a scale” (Morison, 1972). Viewed by the rest of the world as a failure waiting to happen, the infant country that was the United States of America during the 18th and 19th Centuries remained intact following the ratification of its Constitution, and soon began to thrive as a tradition of democracy was put in place; first President George Washington (1789- 1797), stepping down after being offered the title of “King”, was succeeded by John Adams (1789-1797), who was subsequently followed by Thomas Jefferson (1797-1801). It is, however, with the fourth President of the United States, James Madison where America’s tradition of foreign policy blunders takes root.

As Thomas Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison made the transition into the Presidency seamlessly, taking up the previous problems of Jefferson in the process. However, it was Madison’s foreign policy that played into the future problem of the War of 1812. It was well known at the time that Madison was a poor politician, and “... [it's] been learned by experience that to be a successful President, one has to be a good politician” (Morison, 1972). Madison’s presidency, and by extension, his foreign policy, was wrought with foreign political dilemmas.

During his time under Jefferson, it would be Madison who would help an infant America acquire the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon in 1803, doubling the size of the United States in terms of land, and it would be Madison who would help Jefferson enact the Embargo Act of 1807, a spark for the war to come. With new land and new confidence, the United States set out to conquer the world stage, proclaiming neutrality rights under the Embargo Act. Thus, it can be considered that Madison himself was a leading factor towards the outbreak of the controversial war with Great Britain to come.

Despite the consensus of being a terrible politician and lacking in Presidential qualities, Madison earned the title of being a great peacemaker during his time in office (Sage, 2012). A title that contradicts the fact the it would be Madison himself who would call for Congress to enact its Constitutional right to declare war on Great Britain; “Mr. Madison’s War” would be one the young United States was woefully unprepared for.

II. The Embargo Act of 1807

It should be noted that during this time, the rest of the world wasn’t idle, as Europe, after experiencing the force of nature that was the French Revolution, was now dealing with the malevolent force that was Napoleon Bonaparte and the Napoleonic Wars. An inter-continental war between France and the rest of the major players of Europe, the Napoleonic Wars quickly became a war of “economic retribution” as Britain and France attempted to gain the upper hand by starving the other into submission (Britannica, 2018). Amidst all of this was a neutral United States, whose attention quickly became focused on the actions of the British navy in the Atlantic and subsequently the commandeering of American ships and sailors to help in the British war effort against Napoleon. The United States believed that British deserters had a right to become U.S. citizens. Britain did not recognize a right whereby a British subject could relinquish his status as a British subject, emigrate and transfer his national allegiance as a naturalized citizen to any other country. This meant that in addition to recovering naval deserters, it considered any United States citizens who were born British liable for impressment (Morison, 1972).

Still Secretary of State during this time, Madison helped Jefferson with the passing of the Embargo Act of 1807, which was enacted in an attempt to enforce American neutrality rights on the Atlantic (Britannica, 2018). With Congress’s permission, Jefferson pushed the Embargo Act forward, cutting off all U.S. ports from exporting and trading with the United Kingdom. The act was particularly hard on farmers, New Yorkers, and New Englanders invested in maritime interests. The Embargo Act had a completely different effect than what Jefferson wanted or expected, and it later would fall to Madison to reverse the damaging effects the Embargo Act had on the United States economy.

In fact, it would be Madison in 1811, who would prohibit all trade with Great Britain entirely following the signing of the Non- Intercourse Act by Jefferson and subsequent repeal of the Embargo Act in 1809; effectively helping to set the stage for the War of 1812.

III. The “War Hawks”

It would be with the Congressional election of 1810 that new sparks towards the outbreak of war would emerge on the board. With the election came a group of congressmen known as the “War Hawks,” a group comprised of nationalistic southerners and westerners who deeply despised British actions towards Americans on the Atlantic. Standing out amongst the group were Henry Clay of Kentucky, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee, who using the added factor of economic depression, called for a declaration of war against Great Britain (History, 2009).

This was combined with the want to claim rich Canadian soil for American taking, as it was believed that “... war with England… might well bring the Canadian provinces into the American fold” (Sage, 2012). However, despite part of the country’s demands for war, conflict was undesirable to the American people, the vote for declaration of war in Congress being 79- 49 against, with almost every state dismissing the idea (Sage, 2012). New Englanders especially were opposed due to the fears that war with Great Britain would affect the maritime industry the region lived off of.

On June 18, 1812, Madison, after receiving heavy pressure from the War Hawks in Congress, signed the American declaration of war into law, effectively beginning the War of 1812.

The War of 1812

I. Presumptuous Congress and the Shortcomings of the American Militia- Military

To begin, the War of 1812, or the “Forgotten War” is not that well known to Americans outside of the fact that it was a conflict against Great Britain that resulted in the destruction of the capital and “hero- status” of Andrew Jackson. The War of 1812 changed little, if anything in the United States as after the conclusion of the conflict, as America returned to a state of status quo ante bellum. The war originally fought on American soil soon became overshadowed by the greater events simultaneously occurring in Europe.

It should be noted that the United States was woefully unprepared to fight in this war. Not only was there a lack of unity amongst Americans in actually participating in this war, but the disorganization of the American militia, lack of strong military leaders at the beginning of the war, and a general unwillingness of Americans to go past state borders to fight all contributed to the series of disastrous American defeats at the hands of the British (Sage, 2012). In an arrogance that wouldn’t be mimicked until the beginnings of World War I, it was believed by Madison, Congress, the American people that this war wouldn’t take more than a few months; that Canada would easily be seized by American forces, allowing for negotiations to soon follow.

Congress, under the guidance of the “War Hawks” was also very presumptuous in entering this war. Congress had not properly funded or prepared an army, and a number of the states did not support the war effort at all, forbidding their militias to join the campaign (History, 2009). In fact, if it wasn’t for Britain’s simultaneous unpreparedness for war, being immersed in the Napoleonic Wars, the United States could have been on the receiving end of even more dangerous ramifications than what actually occurred. Thus, the United States had great difficulty financing the war it started as it had disbanded its national bank, and private bankers in the Northeast were opposed to the war. Threats of secession arose from New England with the Hartford Convention, and exploiting Americans division and unpreparedness, Great Britain proceeded to blockade southern ports for the majority of the war duration (Sage, 2012).

II. That Time Britain Burned Down the White House

In August, 1914, Madison was forced to flee Washington D.C. in the wake of invading British troops, who proceeded to burn down, amongst other things, the White House, the Capitol Building, and the Library of Congress. While the War of 1812 was significantly more involved in terms of actual events, and military battles fought on land and sea, it can be argued that the most important consequence of poor Presidential, Congressional, and American decision making would be the ransacking of the nation’s capital. In fact, if it wasn’t for Dolly Madison, the United States of America wouldn't have the original copy of the Constitution, or many other valuable historic items, including a revered portrait of George Washington. However, the most detrimental thing to the American federal government and its foreign policy was the fact that the incident was brushed off by American officials in the aftermath.

It would be days after the incident that Attorney General Richard Rush would suggest that the federal government issue an official statement on the events that transpired, spinning the destruction of the city so the whole event would look less like an embarrassment than it actually was. To this, Madison agreed, and the whole ordeal was reduced in the eyes of the public as “an act of vandalism” instead of a military defeat (Morison, 1972). To quote historian Alan Taylor, “...the losers are writing the history as if they were the victors.”

It wouldn’t be until several more naval battles and the American victory under the command of Andrew Jackson in the battle of New Orleans that Great Britain and the United States would call for peace with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. Despite the irony of the Battle of New Orleans, which actually took place after the peace treaty had been signed, the War of 1812 had no real impact on the condition of the United States post- conflict.

The Treaty of Ghent, signed on Christmas Eve 1814, thus ended the deadlock of war with no major concessions granted by either side. The belated American victory at the Battle of New Orleans led to a widespread conception that the United States had won the War of 1812, and the Senate ratified the treaty unanimously. For Americans, the war succeeded splendidly. They had won a ‘second war of independence’” (Sage, 2012). Thus, with the conclusion of the war came the new “Era of Good Feelings” and the death of the old Federalist Party. But alongside this would be more foreign policy blunders to come.

Governments Never Learn

I. America’s Foreign Policy Blunders

Throughout the events leading up to the war and the duration of the actual conflict itself, the American federal government made many different foreign policy blunders that contributed to the outbreak of the war and its results. As stated previously, President James Madison himself made many of the mistakes that set the stage for the outbreak of the war. It would be Madison who would help annex the Louisiana Territory into the United States. Feeding off the bringing in new land to American borders, the federal government and the American peoples themselves were filled with the need for expansion- a sentiment that would create the arrogance that Canada was ripe for American taking during the beginning years of the war.

Madison also be the one to help Jefferson push through the Embargo Act of 1807 at the expense of the American economy. While enacted in response to British commandeering of American ships and soldiers, the Embargo Act would have more negative results than positive ones. The British didn’t need to rely on American goods as was the assumption in the United States, and cutting off trade with the more dominant power only ended up hurting America’s economy instead of sending the message Jefferson and Madison thought it would. It would be this Embargo Act and its subsequent repeal that would cause Madison to place a permanent ban on all exportation and trading to Great Britain, and to ask and be granted a declaration of war by Congress.

With the economy on the low and American sailors and ships still being poached by Great Britain due to their more dominant naval power, the War Hawks demands for war would lead to the internal divide of those in America who wanted war and those who didn’t. It would be this arrogance and abundance of pride that would lead to the federal government covering up and downplaying the events that occurred during the war; maintaining and increasing American egotism and subsequently ushering in the “Era of Good Feelings” at the expense of the Native Americans under President Andrew Jackson.

II. What Should Have Been Done

In the words of author Jon Latimer, “By 1812 Britain had already been fighting republican and Napoleonic France for almost 20 years; fighting, in fact, for her very survival. North America was a mere sideshow, an annoying distraction while Britain was wrestling with a critical world situation.” It is true that during this time, America was seen as nothing more than a mere distraction to Great Britain as Britain was completely occupied by Napoleon. The War of 1812 was not as important as compared to the ongoings in Europe, making openings for diplomatic relations during this time to solve any disputes difficult between the United States and Great Britain.

However, there were different routes the United States could have taken to manage the situation and avoid war altogether. Firstly, the United States could have entered into diplomatic negotiations with Canada before attempting to invade and take land. The reality of the situation was that the Canadians were content with being a British colony, and didn’t need the United States to come and break them from the “chains of tyranny” as was assumed. Throughout history, Great Britain had always been concerned with the ongoings of its overseas empire, and by the newly independent United States opening negotiations with a still British colonial Canada, Britain's attention would be drawn from continental Europe over to the Atlantic in concern for its holding in North America. This thus opens the way for future delegations between the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, as while Britain is fighting in the Napoleonic wars, any drawn- out negotiations would want to be avoided. Thus, the United States could play the angle of agreeing to stop any negotiations with Canada in return for British agreement to stop commandeering American sailors and ships.

Madison could have also played the part of Otto von Bismarck in terms of manipulating Britain into a situation they couldn’t get out of without conceding to American negotiations. Instead of repealing the Embargo Act and enacting a prohibition on British exportation and trade, Madison could have issued a proclamation to switch American international commerce towards France instead. Similar to the Embargo Act of 1807, Napoleon enacted the Continental System in an attempt to sink the British economy. However, this only ended up hurting the economy of continental Europe, allowing Britain to pull ahead in the war. But with the threat of added outside support from the United States, Madison could have manipulated the situation to his favor instead. The American merchant marine had come close to doubling between 1802 and 1810, making it by far the largest neutral fleet. Britain was the largest trading partner, receiving 80% of U.S. cotton and 50% of other U.S. exports (Morison, 1972). While the United States of 1812 was nowhere near the world superpower that it is today, Great Britain wouldn’t have taken the chance of Napoleon gaining the upper hand in any way, thus paving the way for negotiations between the United States and Great Britain to stop the poaching of Americans on the Atlantic in return for the promise not to aid France.

Conclusion

The War of 1812, fought between the newly formed United States, Great Britain, and the former British colony Canada during the years 1812- 1815, was one such event where due to an abundance of blunders and grevious mistakes made by the American federal government, the capital city of Washington D.C. was subsequently ransacked and burnt to the ground. However, through manureving on the part of Madison and the federal government, these foreign political blunders could have been avoided. While conflict can be unavoidable, it can be downplayed and even prevented if governments play their cards correctly. But despite this, the unfortunate tradition of U.S. foreign policy blunders didn’t end and hasn’t still.