Who Really Took Washington?

            What happened to the Aztecs? Who killed five women in Whitechapel in 1888? Where is Amelia Earhart? All of these events lack one crucial piece in order to secure the truth: Eyewitnesses. The eyewitness provides details from a first person perspective that a general historian or investigator can never guess or research. They not only bring the truth, but a more human side to an event that has long since passed. In the War of 1812, during the invasion and burning of Washington D.C., it’s said that before the British got to the White House, Mrs. Madison took down the painting of George Washington and saved it from the hands of the British. However, an eyewitness of the account, a slave and President Madison’s personal servant Paul Jennings, says that this proves to be false. In a section of his memoir, Jennings gives his account of the Burning of Washington D.C. Through his works, one sees that the opinion of an African slave is truth rather than that of a white individual who would seek to protect their name in the history books.

            Paul Jennings’ standing as an African slave under President Madison proved to the focal point of his memoir published in 1865. At the age of ten, Jennings was taken with President Madison to the White House. After journeying to the White House, he became Madison’s personal servant. The events of August 24^th 1814 were recollected by him in his memoir. He describes General Armstrong and his predictions about the events that do not occur so according to plan. He also recounts the actions that occur in and around the White House as everyone flees the British. One his most powerful sights comes when he look out at the city from a distance and sees the fires consuming it. Most importantly, Jennings highlights of the events that occurred may surprise some readers.

Paul Jennings’ account gives the reader a clearer view on events from a pair of eyes that presided over the invasion. A major misconception of the burning of Washington D.C. states that Mrs. Madison herself saved the painting of George Washington. Matthew Dennis in his article, Reflections on a Bicentennial, states very clearly in his article, “Famously, Dolley Madison had managed to save Gilbert Stuart’s full-length portrait of George Washington, which seemed fitting, as Washington would remain the nation’s greatest hero” (Dennis 280). Dennis states here plain as day that Mrs. Madison took down the portrait of George Washington herself. George Washington’s standing during this time period would read that he is the nation’s hero. Of course it would be only natural that Mrs. Madison, being the nation’s first lady at the time, would go out of her way as the British approach to ransack the White House to save this magnificent portrait. Both of these individuals mentioned in the text have Caucasian descent. What more, Mrs. Madison’s standing would be that of a very nationalistic woman. It makes complete sense that a blue blooded American woman would save the painting of the nation’s savior. This however, does not stand to be true according to Jennings. Jennings writes in the end of his autobiography regarding the rumors of Mrs. Madison’s “Bravery” were nothing more than rumors. He follows this statement as such:

She had no time for [getting the painting down]. It would require a ladder to get it down. All she carried off was the silver in her reticule, as the British were thought to be but a few square miles off, and were expected every moment. John Susé (a Frenchman, the door-keeper, and still living) and Magraw…sent it off on a wagon… (Jennings 510). 

According to Jennings, Mrs. Madison did not take down the painting but rather took her precious silver and ran. The paintings gruesome fate never came thanks to the doorman and the gardener. Mrs. Madison would have needed a ladder to get the painting down and this becomes difficult when one’s hands are full of silver. It fell upon the doorman and the gardener to complete this work, when in actuality they could have forgotten about it completely. Mrs. Madison’s task were those of collecting and saving the silver. One cannot blame Mrs. Madison for taking off so quickly, because the British were believed to be at the front door at any minute. The true crime of this historical fact is that history tells us that Mrs. Madison would have risked arm and leg to get the portrait safe. However, she did not grab it and therefore the account stands as a lie. What’s more interesting is that we get the nationality of the doorkeeper as being French, but we do not hear his account. Instead, we hear it from Paul Jennings, a slave who is considered to be no higher than an animal. His race in and of itself provides an unbiased view.

            Race had everything to do with how the truth became written. Since Jennings, at the time of the events, was a slave he had no say in what the truth of history became. But because he did not have the standing of being human during the time period that he described, he could have no reason to lie or make a story to better himself or his standing as an eyewitness. Besides the fact that Mrs. Madison didn’t take down the portrait of Washington herself, other players in this scene would also have reason for their own versions of history to prevail. Such is the case of General Armstrong who repetitively stated that the capitol was safe. Jennings writes in his memoir;

Every thing seemed to be left to General Armstrong, then Secretary of War, who ridiculed the idea that there would be any danger. But in August, 1814, the enemy had got so near, there could be no doubts in their intentions…Even that very morning General Armstrong assured Mrs. Madison there was no danger (Jennings 508).

  General Armstrong’s words stand on this page as directly saying that the British presented no threat to the capitol and its people. Even when everyone could tell that the enemy planned to invade, General Armstrong reassured everyone that all would be well. He also assured Mrs. Madison just hours before invasion that all would be safe. The fact that General Armstrong ignores any concerns is not the problem, but more so that he ridiculed any present ideas of danger makes him appear incompetent. Seeing as he assured Mrs. Madison that all would be safe would also explain why she left so quickly and the painting of Washington had to be removed by Susé and Magraw. A man as high in the position of General Armstrong would be respected among his peers and whose intellect about battle would also be unquestionable. He repetitively states that no harm will fall Washington D.C. However, harm does fall the capitol and all of the White House residents are forced to flee while the British burn it all to the ground. Understandable, a man in such a position would not want to have made such a grievous miscalculation. If the event proved able to be kept under wraps, Armstrong certainly would have done it. Jennings provides the reader with an accurate historical portrayal. His testimony only survives because the War of 1812 started a fire in the souls of Federalists. Matthew Mason states in his article;

  The War of 1812 politicized and strengthened Federalist control over New England…in the face of the danger of invasion in 1814, in late 1813 and early 1814 Massachusetts towns, led by local Federalists, organized meeting to exert pressure [on anti-slavery laws] at the state level (Mason 547).

The events of the War of 1812 were all that was required for Federalists to gain political ground and favor in the Northern states. The Federalists ended up using the threat of the invasion of Washington D.C. as their launching off point in order to gain political ground. Rather than trying to take all of the country at once. The initial invasion of Washington D.C. would prove to be a turning point for the country. Because of the events of Washington D.C. and the stumbling predictions of General Armstrong, Federalists were able to gain a strong foothold in the North. Paul Jennings document becomes possible because of these actions. It is also through his document that we are able to see what truly happens. One can only guess what would have become of Paul Jennings memoir if the War of 1812 never happened and events surrounding it never transpired. At the time Jennings status as a slave would have been a dismissive sign that his account of the invasion of the capitol would be of little importance. However, the abolitionist feelings that become deep rooted and were fought for during this time made Jennings account possible. Jennings’ account of what transpired that day seems miniscule and unimportant, but the fact that this document is able to exists and be in print still testifies that his account reveals the truth behind the events of that fateful day.

            The writer does not create history, the eyewitness does. A writer can put down whatever history the modem fit for people to remember. But the writer does not have to be there to write about what they interpret to have happened. When the eyewitness becomes the writer, we have that much more of chance to see the whole truth and nothing but. Paul Jennings’s account show the reader what really happened inside the chaos that surrounded the narrative of that fateful August day. His ethnicity also proves to be possible due to the events surrounding the narrative. It proves itself to be alive only because of the events that Jennings witnessed that day. His article is a testimony to how much things changed in a few decades and how the reader can now read a true eyewitness report.   

Work Cited

Dennis, Matthew. "Reflections on a Bicentennial the War of 1812 in American Public Memory." Early American Studies Spring 2014 (2014): 269-300. Web.

Jennings, Paul. "Paul Jennings: From A Colored Man's Reminiscences of James Madison: A Slave's View from The White House: Washington, D.C., August 1814." The War of 1812: Writings from America's Second War of Independence. Ed. Donald R. Hickey. New York: Library of America, 2013. 508-10. Print.

Mason, Matthew. ""Nothing Is Better Calculated to Excite Divisions": Federalist Agitation against Slave Representation during the War of 1812." "Nothing Is Better Calculated to Excite Divisions": Federalist Agitation against Slave Representation during the War of 181275.4 (2002): 531-61. Web.