Talk:Battle of Bladensburg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Numbers of British troops

The current 4500 figure given in the info box is taken from a misreading the 1911 Britannica. That figure is the given strength of Ross's brigade, many of whom were elsewhere. Reading the various online accounts, the actual British strength given in them ranges from a total of 4000 regulars, marines and sailors which were in Maryland to as low as 1500 regulars and who were actually on the field of battle. Now I recall reading the 1500 figure in the Encyclopaedia of Military History by R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor Nevitt Dupuy, but that was some 30 years ago and my memory is not what it was so I can't be sure I'm right. Does anyone have the actual correct figures of these present on the battlefield? Thanks - Galloglass 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Barbara Tuchman in "The March of Folly" puts the British figure at 1500 and the Americans at 5000. She comments that 1500 regulars are always more than a match for 5000 militia whatever their nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.174 (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

George Gleig's eyewitness account refers to the British forces being divided into three "Brigades". Separate of the Brigade structure is the fleet's composite battalion of about 400 men who are onshore, and maintaining a presence at Upper Marlboro. Only the 1st Brigade fought at Bladensburg.

1st Brigade was composed of the 85th and light companies of the 4th 21st, and 44th Regiments. Also attached were Lt Athelstan Stevens's company from the Marine (raiding) battalion, and a company of Colonial Marines, and the battalion's rocket detachment commanded by Lt John Lawrence.

The 2nd Brigade consisted of the remainder of the 4th and 44th Foot.

The 3rd Brigade consisted of the 21st Foot, and the remainder of the Marine (raiding) battalion, with sailors pulling Captain Harrison's artillery pieces. It is understood that the remaining two Colonial Marine companies were with the third; one commander (Lewis Agassiz) later applied for a coat of arms, to commemorate his role in the burning of Washington. (Strengths of the Colonial Marine companies: Lt Agassiz - 78 men, Lt Brown - 81 men, Lt Tucker - 74 men). Keith H99 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nottingham, Maryland

Perhaps the source was confused with Cheltenham, Maryland Tedickey (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The source I used (Elting, John R. Amateurs, to Arms!. New York: Da Capo Press. pp. 204, 207. ISBN 0-306-80653-3.) is specific about Nottingham. HLGallon (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Part 4 Aftermath

What we know today about this battle of Blandensburg & what the British did in Washington comes in large part from African American slaves present at both locations.

There is - and has been for a long time - the story that Dolley Madison saved the valuables from the White House. What actually happened is that her slaves did the work. Paul Jennings wrote numerous details, and without his writing (which is something like the first "tell all" of the White House), A COLORED MAN'S REMINISCENCES OF JAMES MADISON, published in 1865, we would not have as many details as we do today.

Jennings makes it clear that Dolley Madison could not and did not remove the painting of Gerogr Washington. Ebanony (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

However, the material is not relevant to this topic. Looks like it should be moved to Dolley Madison, and (noting that the sourcing is a little weak), fill in historian's commentary Tedickey (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tedickey claims that the "sourcing is a litte weak".How doies he justify this claim? Please state exactly what is wrong with the sources.

Second, the Battle of Blandensbrg is related to events in Washington; Blandensburg was a battle to protect the city. Removing valuables from the house was protecting the city.Ebanony (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

With that line of reasoning, it's likely you'll paste the content into every topic linked to Dolley Madison. Do try to stay on topic, and provide reliable sources for each part of your text. Tedickey (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the fate of the White House's art collection is irrelevant to the events at Bladensburg? It might reasonably be added to the article on the Burning of Washington, but here it is merely an unnecessary piece of trivia. HLGallon (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Something like that. I noticed that topic also has essentially the same comment about Dolley Madison, but also unsourced and slightly less. So I suggested Dolley Madison's topic as a suitable home for expanding the various sources relating to the incident, since it was more pertinent to the person than the historical topic. Tedickey (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't design the section. I simply made a correction to the information on Dolley Madsion that was already there. Now, as to the source, I quoted Paul Jennings who was an eyewitness to the events in August 1814, as he was Madison's slave in the White House. His testimony is valid. That is a direct quote from A COLORED MAN'S REMINISCENCES OF JAMES MADISON pgs 12-14; it is not my opinion, and it does not lack a source.

Jennings writing is not doubted by serious historians, including Jesse Holland who is an award winning Associated Press journalist who referenced this account in his recent book Black Men Built the Capitol, and made direct statements about it on international television interview. Do you still have problems with using an African American slave's historical testimony? How is it invalid?Ebanony (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You added several statements; here's a list of points (a) there's a myth (not found in source), (b) the source refers to " having purchased his freedom of Mrs. Madison", which needs exploring, (c) Jennings is the only person in the source specifically mentioned to be a slave. Here, of course, you're confusing journalists with historians - not necessarily the same thing, and often very different. It's preferable to let the sources speak for themselves rather than providing your own interpretation Tedickey (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear about the facts. (a) That "There is a myth" is a factual statement, and it is stated in the source (Paul Jennings), though with different words. I quote: "It has often been stated in print, that when Mrs. Madison escaped from the White House, she cut out from the frame the large portrait of Washington (now in one of the parlors there), and carried it off. This is totally false." Pg 13 of Jennings book, which I suggest you read. The "myth" continues in documentaries, stories & was here on this webpage a few days ago, hence the correction.

(b) needs no "exploring" unless you're unfamiliar with the facts. Jennings was one of Madison's slaves, and did work out a deal to purchase his liberty & was involved in a slave uprising that's not relevant to this discussion (this was after James Madison's death); but since you raise the issue, I quote NPR's piece "After the War of 1812, Jennings went on to buy his freedom". There are many other sources that confirm this. Its not a "statement" I even made in the article. Your attempt to discredit the writer is based on your interpretation, not the facts.

Now William Seale - who happens to be a well respected historian - discusses Jennings in an article titled Upstairs and downstairs: the 19th-century White House, Feb-Mar 1995 in American Visions, where he states "The names of the Madison slaves are known and several stand out, notably the butler, John Freeman" as well the "... the best known was Paul Jennings, who many years later wrote the first 'insider' memoir of the White House." Seale does not doubt Jennings (or the other slaves mentioned) position as a slave or his writing. My understanding is that this article is correct.

(c) Jennings is not the "only person in the source specifically mentioned to be a slave". John Freeman is mentioned by name by historian Seale (above) & Paul Jennings specifically uses his name on pg 13; I quote "...and told John Freeman (the butler) to serve out wine liberally to the servants and others". There is absolutely no confusion of journalists and historians. Jesse Holland is a journalist whose book is well corroborated not only by news agencies like NPR and hisotrians like Seale. Your basis for questioning him is?

Additional Points. As to Paul Jennings, NPR did another piece on him entitled Descendants Of A Slave See The Painting He Saved by David Gura on August 24, 2009 where it documents 1) how Paul Jennings was involved with saving the painting of Washington as it was recorded in his writing and 2) his descendants were honoured at a White House ceremony (Aug 24, 2009). You can also hear an audio version on All Things Considered where they interview a descendant in Descendant Of White House Slave Shares Legacy. In no instance is the historical accuracy of Paul Jennings account questioned by the NPR or the White House, which organised the event. Why do you continue to question it?

I have let the sources speak for themselves and have added no interpretation. I did omit unecessary details so as to save space, which could have been accessed by using the source provided. You have made sereval claims as to accuracy and reliablility of the source, and have no basis on which to make these claims; the additional sources that I have added clearly contradict your unfounded allegations. You cite not one historical reference to support your claims. Do you still have any objections to using Paul Jennings, an African American slave and eyewitness that numerous historians/journalists use today? What problem is there with Jesse Holland, an award winning African American journalist, historian William Seale or NPR or the White House ceremony? Ebanony (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of words. From you. Try to read the sources instead. Nowhere in your source does it state that all of the servants were slaves. You need a second supporting source for that. There's a little bit of usable material in your comments, but it's outweighed by your opinions. Tedickey (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way - several of your comments are uncivil - try to stay on topic and refrain from attacking other editors. Tedickey (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You might consider modifying your links to follow the convention for talkpages (there's no reflist, so normally editors use inline links to support their comments). Bear in mind that talk page comments are not a reliable source. Tedickey (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tedickey said "Nowhere in your source does it state that all of the servants were slaves." And I never made this claim; you did.

You say "there's little useable" in what I wrote - no evidence, just you opinion. Then you have the audacity to claim that my comments "are uncivil". Untrue. I've responded to your false claims in detail.

Tedickey you have taken a few sentences and claimed that Paul Jennings (among others) are not reliabe sources. You cite nothing to back this up. The other claims you made patently false, and I quoted the sources to demonstrate it because you called into question my objectivity as a contributor. Instead of attacking me, deal with the issue: the inofrmation used is factual and well documented. I refer you back to the comments and sources you refuse to read, as I've addressed your allegations.Ebanony (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

hmm - then where is your source for stating that the butler was a slave? You offered that as a counter example to my comment pointing out that Jennings is the only person in that source explicitly noted as a slave. Tedickey (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I already addressed this. I quote: "William Seale discusses Jennings in an article titled Upstairs and downstairs: the 19th-century White House, Feb-Mar 1995 in American Visions, where he states "The names of the Madison slaves are known and several stand out, notably the butler, John Freeman".

I (C) I also wrote "pg 13; I quote "...and told John Freeman (the butler) to serve out wine liberally to the servants and others" & "John Freeman (the colored butler) drove off in the coachee" pg 9 & 13. Jennings identifies him in his writing.

1) I answered this twice. 2) Madsion had many slaves, but not every person there was a slave. Jennings & Freeman were. 3) How is this relevant to the small section in the article? 4) How can you claim there's a lack of sources? The titles or URL are there.Ebanony (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Ebanony (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that you didn't read any of my responses today, but continued to repeat yourself. Will check back later, in case you stop to read and followup on my advice. Tedickey (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I read them. I've already quoted from Jennings & Seale that both Jennings and John Freeman (the butler) were Madison's slaves - both have url's attached. Both the historian Seale and Madison's slave Jennings say that Freeman was a slave. What is the problem? You can't keep claiming Freeman or Jennings weren't specifically slaves; they were & it says it in the source.

What's not clear is if you refer to the text on the article or what I've written above. I've just adjusted the text to clarify any ambiguity in the slave or slaves to read "This is contradicted by one of the White House slaves, Paul Jennings. He was one of Madison's slaves in August 1814 at the White House and an eyewitness of the events". Jennings is the slave who contradicted the myth, and it is he (not Freeman) who is relevant here. Only Jennings is identified in the article. Does that satisfy your concern?Ebanony (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

'What we know today about this battle of Bladensburg .. comes in large part from African American slaves present' Please can you back this up with some sources, as I am always keen to read first hand accounts. I would like to see if I can source the info from here in the UK, without having to travel to the US. Keith H99 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

source for "Ross-of-Bladensburg"

General Robert Ross' descendants were given the surname "Ross-of-Bladensburg". The source for the facts surrounding Ross' family name is "A Complete Guide to Heraldry" by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies (published 1909), pages 113, 474, 593, 374. The book is also online and the passage on page 593 can be found here: http://www.archive.org/stream/completeguidetoh00foxdrich#page/592/mode/2up Regards, ViennaUK (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Bladensburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106204213/http://battleofbladensburg1812.com/Bladensburg/battle-of-bladensburg/ to http://battleofbladensburg1812.com/Bladensburg/battle-of-bladensburg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)