This Day In History August 24, 1814 British capture and burn Washington

historychannel.com ^ | 8/24/05 | historychannel.com

[mainepatsfan]

1814 British capture and burn Washington

During the War of 1812, British forces under General Robert Ross overwhelm American militiamen at the Battle of Bladensburg, Maryland, and march unopposed into Washington, D.C. Most congressmen and officials fled the nation's capital as soon as word came of the American defeat, but President James Madison and his wife, Dolley, escaped just before the invaders arrived. Earlier in the day, President Madison had been present at the Battle of Bladensburg and had at one point actually taken command of one of the few remaining American batteries, thus becoming the first and only president to exercise in actual battle his authority as commander in chief.

The British army entered Washington in the late afternoon, and General Ross and British officers dined that night at the deserted White House. Meanwhile, the British troops, ecstatic that they had captured their enemy's capital, began setting the city aflame in revenge for the burning of Canadian government buildings by U.S. troops earlier in the war. The White House, a number of federal buildings, and several private homes were destroyed. The still uncompleted Capitol building was also set on fire, and the House of Representatives and the Library of Congress were gutted before a torrential downpour doused the flames.

On August 26, General Ross, realizing his untenable hold on the capital area, ordered a withdrawal from Washington. The next day, President Madison returned to a smoking and charred Washington and vowed to rebuild the city. James Hoban, the original architect of the White House, completed reconstruction of the executive mansion in 1817.

[mainepatsfan]

It didn't have the effect on the Americans the British had hoped for.

[Strategerist]

It was retaliation for our burning Toronto (then called York).

[geopyg]

A few weeks ago I saw a show about tornados. They said (if I recall correctly) that THAT day was the ONLY time a tornado was ever recorded to have been in Washington. They claimed that the twister threw the British into such disarray that they weren't able to regroup. (And interesting about the rain putting out the fires).

They also mentioned some little town (down south?) that had been hit 3 or 4 years in a row on the SAME day by devasting twisters.

[Rebelbase]

When I was a little kid we used to tour around DC with my uncle who lived in Alexandria. Sometimes we coudn't figure out which building was which because they all look similar.

He jokingly said "that's why the British never burned the White House, they couldn't find it".

For years I took that as Gospel.

[mainepatsfan]

I think Blair apologized for the burning a couple of years ago in a speech before congress. I don't think it was necessary. It was our own fault for not keeping British out of the capitol.

[Pharmboy]

The Burning of York (Toronto)

---

Casebook: The War of 1812: People: The Burning of York (Toronto)

---

By Joe Neuman on Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 08:54 am:

I've heard the Americans burning down of York (Toronto), the capital of Lower Canada, was a major reason the Brits raided Baltimore-Washington, including the White House.
I still believe, in 1812, the British would have liked to take over all of America, but were the Brits more concerned with achieving retribution via the Baltimore-Washington? I wonder if the British in this period would have recognized that the taking of Washington would not amount to the reconquest of the "colonies."
Had the British been successful in holding the Great Lakes region, conceivably they could have developed a stranglehold on the United
States. However, the fighting in the Great Lakes region was slightly an American victory overall. Were the British also more concerned with Napoleon which may have been more important
than retaking all of North America.

By Christopher T George on Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:52 am:


Hi, Joe:

You are correct that the British were more concerned that in fighting Napoleon in this period. The War of 1812 was a sideshow compared to the fight with Napoleon which was for the survival of Great Britain and the future of Europe. British foreign policy at the time was dominated by European affairs. If the British had lost Canada to the United States therefore it is a question whether they would have tried to get it back.

Canadian historian Donald Graves has been looking into whether there is any evidence that the British actually said they attacked Washington, D.C. in August 1814 because the Americans had burned the public buildings of York, the capital of Upper Canada, in April 1813. Although it is usually said that this was the case, Graves says that the evidence is lacking that the British say this in any document. It seems then that it is in retrospect that the attack on Washington is viewed as "retribution" for what the Americans did at York, and possibly more by the Americans than the British.

It should also be said that the British were in and out of Washington, D.C. within a couple of days and did not intend to keep the U.S. capital. The same probably would have happened at Baltimore as well if they had captured that city. With an army of only 4,000 men they could not possibly have held the city for any length of time.

Best regards

Chris George

By John R. Grodzinski on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 12:19 pm:


York was actually the capital of Upper Canada, modern Ontario. Many authors have suggested that the burning of the "President's Mansion" (it only became the White House after it was burnt) resulted from the destruction of public buildings at York. However the evidence for this is spurious. Few British outside of Canada would have know about this and quite frankly few cared. I doubt many of them would have located Canada on a map. The focus was, as you say, on defeating Napoleon and the war in North America detracted from this effort.

British desires to conquer the US were probably about as strong as American desires to conquer Canada. It was just not in the realm of the possible. The War of 1812 was more of an attempt to secure frontiers. Remember, these were still not completely settled. For the Americans, the Creek War, Louisiana Purchase and defeat of the Natives in the Old North West achieved much. The British wanted to improve land communication between New Brunswick and Lower Canada, but failed. They too would have wanted to retain the Old North-West, but lost there also. The British occupied several points in the US as did the US in Canada, but these were all returned following the war. An interesting side note is that the British did manage to collect taxes during their occupation of Castine (in Maine) which were later used to establish Dalhousie University in Halifax!

In the end, the border issues lingered until the 1870s and were settled by wars against the Natives and diplomacy. By then, the existence of both Canada and the US was assured.

By Christopher T George on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 12:57 pm:

[mainepatsfan]

Luckily the British weren't as successful when they tried to take Baltimore.

[mainepatsfan]

The British had been more focused on defeating Napoleon but at the time they attacked Washington Bonaparte was Emperor of Elba instead of France.

[nascaryankee]

There is a very good program on the History Channel that is shown every now and then. The tornado story is true,the storm put out the fire. British had to pull out.

[mainepatsfan]

That was an excellent program. Too many Americans don't know much about the War of 1812.

[rhombus]

A few weeks ago I saw a show about tornados. They said (if I recall correctly) that THAT day was the ONLY time a tornado was ever recorded to have been in Washington.

I saw this story about the storm in a History Channel program about the War of 1812. I was very surprised that I had never heard about this before. It sounded like the storm was absolutely "Biblical" and I would have thought that such a storm would have become legendary as the years passed.

[Strategerist]

The History Channel documentary on the War of 1812 was very deeply flawed.

It completely ignored the main theater of fighting in the War, the US-Canadian border.

The main cause of the War was the US desire to conquer Canada; which failed miserably. It wasn't an attempt by the British to reconquer the US.

[happinesswithoutpeace]

"The main cause of the War was the US desire to conquer Canada; which failed miserably."

Well, we did get to kill Isaac Brock anyway (not even a Canadian, but they still like him).

[Pharmboy]

Battle of Waterloo Map of the Waterloo campaign The Battle of Waterloo, fought on June 18, 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte's last battle. After his exile to Elba, he had been restored to the throne of France for a Hundred Days. During this time, the forces of the rest of Europe converged on him, commanded by United Kingdoms Duke of Wellington, and Prussias Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher. "''The nearest run thing you ever saw in your life''" – the Duke of Wellington

[mainepatsfan]

The Prussians showed up just in time.

[agere_contra]

That's right - Jefferson thought (erroneously as it turned out) that the Canadians wanted to stop being a British colony. The defensive land war against the Americans went very well for Canada. The ship-to-ship battles on the Lakes went very well for America, establishing a blockade of the Canadian colonies. The British naval blockade of the American states was also unanswerable. Peace was pretty much bound to break out when one side realised its original war-aims were wrongly informed, and both sides had stable blockades in force. Plus - I bet there was a distaste on both sides for any more "anglosphere" violence, though I don't know this.

[agere_contra]

Interestingly Wellington didn't have his world-renowned veterans from the Penisular war with him at Waterloo. The lads who smashed the otherwise undefeated French at Salamanca, Corunna, Torres Verdes etc had all been shipped off to (giess where) Canada - because of the 1812 invasion and didn't get back in time for Waterloo. Thank God Napoleon wasn't on top form that day in 1815...

[Strategerist]

Well, a lot of people in New England considered seceeding from the US because they were so opposed to the war; and many in Britain recognized the basic stupidity of the war.

[speedy]

My inexact recollection is that at the Hartford Convention the New England states went on record as opposing the war and threatened secession, in large part because the blockade was destroying the trade on which they depended. I also recall that John Adams was very much opposed to the Hartford Convention.

[agere_contra]

Well, we did get to kill Isaac Brock anyway (not even a Canadian, but they still like him).

I wish you guys had killed that utter tit Prevost. Gods what a dandified waste of space he was. But Brock - the guy was a hero no matter which side we're on :0)