Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Colin
    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
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      manning them?

      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

      Colin Murphy
      USS CON 1812 MG
      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Windsor"
      <kevin.windsor@...> wrote:
      > 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
      > national anthem to sing at sporting events!
      > So this year at defenders day, please don't boo the Brits. . .
      thank them.
      > KW/89
      > (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
      > Hampstead Hill.
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.