RE: 1812 Fw: SEN. CARDIN, TEAM MD TO CELEBRATE NEW STAR-SPANGLED TRAIL AT FT....
- But just think Ed, if the British hadn't bombed the Fort, and been a group
that likes to sing really loud drinking songs you wouldn't have a cool
national anthem to sing at sporting events!
So this year at defenders day, please don't boo the Brits. . . thank them.
(tongue firmly planted in cheek!!)
From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ed Seufert
A desultory bombardment overseen by a lackadaisical commander does
not a battle make. If you want to equate it as such, then yes, it
was a fireworks show to draw attention away from the main assault at
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Kevin and Ed,
Just trying to help here and put more perspectives in play
In one case, making "sport" of our national anthem may offend. (are
you a Montral Canadians Fan or something?)
In the other case,though I personally have not had the utmost
displeasure to endure a 25 hour, or even a singular second of
a "desultory bombardment," I have talked to many veterans who have
endured from one, to hundreds of incoming rounds (never mind 2,000+)
and so far those that have continued in the conversation seem to
have got across to me that they recolect and consider those moments
as moments of battle. And I dare say the two gentlemen killed at
Ft. McHenry, their families, friends etc. etc. would consider
the "event" a battle.
BtW Letters I have read seem to sugest Colonel Brooke was expecting
more than a diversion (not confusing the bombardment of the fort
with the barge "attack" with BLANK rounds up the Ferry Branch)...One
example shows that he was expecting the Navy to get past Ft.
McHenry, Ft. Covington and the other emplacements to provide "a
naval co-operation against the town and camp" but because "the
entrance of the harbour being closed up by vessels sunk for that
purpose" any attack upon the city was "impracticable". (Brooke to
Bathurst 9-17-1814)I know...he is giving credit to the sunken hulks,
but would those hulks be of any hinderance, except in the aspect of
time, were it not for the forts and emplacements and the Americans
Also, If the Royal Navy did not have the ability to continue past
the defences or just that the R.N. commander decided he had better
things to do, I would guess it may have had something to do with the
defences the city had and their inability to breach them. As I am
sure, fresh off the spledid sacking of Washington, many aboard the
fleet would have loved to drop anchor in Baltimore harbor and load
on the cartloads of booty that a large seaport would provided in
contrast to that of the third rate Federal "town" whose proximity to
the fleet, the nature of the expedition and the pure lack of actual
plunder had provided just a short time before. Thus credit is due
and not a dismissal of the operation as some misguided outing of a
half hearted naval commander.
Again,just trying to add some balance to the rampant Anglophilia
that often arises and (noticably I hope) provide an
amicable "stiring of the pot" :)
Y most H and OS
USS CON 1812 MG
--- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Windsor"
> But just think Ed, if the British hadn't bombed the Fort, and been
> that likes to sing really loud drinking songs you wouldn't have acool
> national anthem to sing at sporting events!thank them.
> So this year at defenders day, please don't boo the Brits. . .
> (tongue firmly planted in cheek!!)
> From: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com]
> Of Ed Seufertat
> A desultory bombardment overseen by a lackadaisical commander does
> not a battle make. If you want to equate it as such, then yes, it
> was a fireworks show to draw attention away from the main assault
> Hampstead Hill.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]