(click on ads for more details)

Remember When They Burned The White House And The Capitol ?

by Randy Barker

Much has been made about the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center being another Pearl Harbor. But if history were still being taught in
America, more would know that the British attack on Washington, DC on August 24, 1814 is perhaps an even closer parallel.

America was unprepared back then, too. Even though the British Navy ruled the waters off the entire east coast of the United States during the War of 1812, no provision was made to adequately protect the nation's capitol, which was virtually defenseless if an attack came via the Chesapeake Bay. Intelligence had warned that something was up. The British fleet had recently received heavy reinforcements. Nothing was done.

The enemy went for symbolism. The attack on the Twin Towers wasn't a
strategic target like Pearl Harbor. It simply made a statement: "We will
bring down your most prominent symbol of capitalism, finishing the job we
started back in 1993." Likewise, the British under General Ross didn't need
to attack Washington. They didn't need to burn the White House or burn the Capitol Building for any military reason. This was simply an "in your face" terrorist event designed to say "Nothing is safe from us, and, by the way, we're going to get revenge for losing at Yorktown in 1781." Nearby Baltimore and "star-spangled" Fort McHenry were much more strategic targets than our relatively new and unfinished capital city. It was a quick hit that only lasted 24 hours.

It made America angry. Not only because an attack on Washington was done, but how it was done. The British victory was "sullied by acts of vandalism worthy only of barbarians. The destruction of libraries and architectural structures not connected with the purposes of war stamps disgrace on a people who boast of their humanity and civilization. No substantial benefit was derived by the enemy from the capture of Washington, but the mortification of the disaster sunk deep into the minds of the American people." Americans were also asking questions of their government. " Such an event might have been foreseen, and it reflects great discredit on the American cabinet not to have provided a more efficient defense of the capitol of the United States."

Still, some Americans were against the war to begin with. Today, the people against retaliating against Bin Laden are mainly old peaceniks and their ideological children. Back in 1812, opposition was disturbingly economic. People in the maritime Northeast were apparently willing to accept any indignity from Britain in order to make a buck. What Britain was doing was stopping American ships and "shanghaiing" our sailors, forcing them to serve on British ships. About 5,000 were taken, only 1,361 later released. They were also requiring American ships to pay taxes to England to trade in any Napoleon-controlled European port. You would think that would incense shippers in the North. But no, the profits were so high they wanted to ignore it. In fact, they were infuriated with those in the South and the West (meaning the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana and Ohio) who insisted Britain's provocations were acts of war. There was even serious talk (e.g. the Hartford Convention) of New England seceding from the Union.  Yes, New England.

America's military became unbeatable. Prior to the attack on Washington, the United States was having mixed success at best in the War with Britain.
Things changed after the burning of Washington. From that time forward, the United States never lost another battle to Britain, either on land, or on the sea, the most notable victories being at Plattsburgh Bay in New York and at the Battle of New Orleans.

Let's hope today's military has that same kind of success. Let's hope
America stays focused. Let's hope the Bush Administration doesn't lose its
nerve. The Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 turned a string of military victories into a diplomatic draw. This conflict can't end in a draw.

{Historical quotes from "A Pictorial History Of America", circa 1849.}

Excerpt from NotSo SERIOUS MONEY,
a weekly online financial newsletter written by
randybarker@aol.com