I didn’t know that, that’s ridiculous. Who’d thought that bringing some realism to an event would be something to prohibit?
1 Like
This is the real thing.
http://www.historiaobscura.com/commemoration-of-a-hero-jean-laffite-and-the-battle-of-new-orleans/
For your information, during the “ lets take down the monuments craze” they wanted to take down Andrew Jackson’s monument, I can’t quite remember what stopped them, they were on a roll. But they ended up being satisfied with General Lee and General Beauregard.
That is good.
So it didn’t really happen yet… maybe in another 900 years?
General Lee is grossly misunderstood. His views on southern issues were intentionally skewed. I’m trying to think of a country that fought a devastating civil and reintegrated the rebellious segment. Far from perfect, but better than most. You have to look at institutional progress, not what is in the hearts of an individual.
I thought “they” were mostly going after Civil War statues to remove, so Andrew Jackson was spared.
No I looked into it, they hated Andrew Jackson and had his statues/ monuments taken down in a lot of cities and they wanted his taken down in New Orleans and pushed hard for it. I dont know how they stopped them they had so much momentum nationwide but they were able to stop them because of the Battle of New Orleans and this one was in New Orleans.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of @Jyak and we all know what that can lead to, it must be pointed out that a wrong conclusion was drawn and has been drawn by many others and in this case was reiterated twice. That is that the Battle of New Orleans was inconsequential because the Treaty of Ghent was signed 15 days before the battle. That could not be further from the truth as was spelled out in the book “But For a Piece of Wood” by Professor Ron Chapman on the Battle of New Orleans and by other sources. The Treaty of Ghent was “ Signed” by the negotiators that is true, indicating there was an agreement, but it was not Ratified. Negotatiators can not ratify a treaty, only Congress can ratify a treaty, it was not binding. The treaty was not worth the paper it was written on at that point and the British could have easily backed out of it and they would have. Documents were discovered that laid out Englands plan, they intended to take New Orleans, establish a garrison there, then set out to conquer the entire Mississippi Basin, cut off a major trade route and nullify the Louisiana Purchase along with its allie Spain. If England had taken New Orleans, that is what would have happened. The stakes were very, very high. That is why what Andrew Jackson, with the help of Jean Lafitte, did, was so important.
Edit: With all due respect to @Jyak.
1 Like
I have no skin in the game so I won’t be offended by the facts.
Hmmm, that’s a twist. I have too much going on and haven’t gotten to the “wood” post, but are you suggesting that as long as the treaty was not ratified (which would take a while to transport it by ship, because they needed an original copy instead of a digital facsimile), the Brits could have, and would have, reneged on the treaty. So if the Battle of New Orleans had been decided the other way, England wouldn’t have honored the “negotiated but unratified treaty”. That point should have been obvious to scholars and never occured to me either, but I’m no scholar by a long shot.
Now are you able to shed light on the reason why or how that simple point of protocol alluded everyone’s attention? Is it possible the US ambassador or representative was given carte blanche authority to accept a deal. But still, England could’ve insisted on renewed negotiations with amended demands, then damned anyone who stood in the way.
What remains unclear is how they managed to use alligators to fi . . . never mind.
Respect, I get no respect . . The other day, my wife told my son to take out the trash, so he grabbed my leg. I told him, “You’re no son of mine!” And he said, "I didn’t think mom was going to tell you . . . ! The day I was born, the doctor told my mother that he did everything he could, but I pulled through anyway . . . Respect.
It is the matter of the Constitution, the only body that can ratify a treaty (approve it) is Congress, it is in there. Even the President can not ratify (approve) a treaty by executive order or any other means. Obama got around that by redefining the nuclear treaty with iran as not being a treaty but an agreement. That is not to say what the negotiators signed was worthless, it had some power, if a treaty between the United States and England was to be approved, that is the form it had to be in, that is what was agreed upon, nothing else. But it was not ratified yet. The stakes were so high, that if England would have taken New Orleans and put their plan to work to take the entire Mississippi Basin. they would have used any loophole they could to nullify that treaty and this was it. You can get into all the legalize you want, but the bottom line is, that if England had taken New Orleans, then the entire Mississippi Basin that treaty would not even of mattered. Too much at stake, that was their ticket, they had a lot of experience in colonialism.
Read the article (carefully) when the time is right you will enjoy it, it is well written, a rarity tioday.
You havent been around long enough to know that many mess with thst guy.
Contrary to the popular historic perspective, the jubilant British commander no doubt would have seized the opportunity to march on. However, that would depend on the disposition of his command, and whether he still had an effective fighting force or needed to reorganize.
After Lee’s march through the north was halted at Antietam, and again at Gettysburg, the matter of who lost more troops and equipment wasn’t relevant. Lee lost the initiative and slinked away, as he was forced to return home with a combat ineffective Army. The Army of the Potomac was equally mauled in both cases, to the point that reorganization was deemed prudent.
Who knows now whether the outcome at the Battle of New Orleans really matter after all. On the political front, I don’t know who initiated the negotiations. Was it the Brits who realized the cause was a lost one, or was it the new narion who wanted to sue for pease.
It appears that New Orleans and Baltimore played pivotal rolls. Washington, DC was burned, but the 1st Maryland Regiment held the line at the Battle of North Point, thus preventing British forces from taking Baltimore by land (the goal being to burn the ship yards that turned out the swift Baltimore Clipper that were used by privateers and smugglers). Ft McHenry held, and the sight of the flag spawned the national anthem.
Your post gave me a new found respect for Jean Lafitte. I notice how Keyes refered to him as a bucaneer and privateer. It’s sad that his critical contribution came at such a personal cost.
As you well know, for whatever reason, Andrew Jackson and America was ill prepared to defend New Orleans as was laid out in the article I have been trying to get you to read. Andrew Jackson would have been crushed without Jean Lafitte and the British would have suffered very few casualties or reduction in their fighting ability. If America could not mount any defense of New Orleans a critical port and entry into the Mississippi their defense of the Mississippi Basin would have bee non existent The British would have romped through the area with the Highlanders. Yes, the Battle of New Orleans was crucial from every measure. Andrew Jackson, Jean Lafitte and their disparate group may well have saved the nation. As I said before, the British were experts in colonial conquests.
Your examples of Lee and the others are well taken, but they were facing formidable opposition, the opposition of what Andrew Jackson had on his own when he first arrived was anything but formidable, it was almost nonexistent, without even flints.
Point taken and agreed. Still, in my mind though, is the matter of who sued for peace. Interesting dilemma, but your suggestion rules.
That is an interesting question, who sued for peace and why, it would be very telling. It would seem a set of very fortunate circumstances allowed this nation to form. But what stands out and perhaps inspired America is that a widely disparate group of Americans hastily thrown together with nothing but the desire for freedom to motivate them defeated the 93 Regiment Scottish Highland Group which had recently defeated Napoleon.
Careful, now, lest yee find yourself getting chewed-out by George Patton (or was he Maximus Bludgutious then?) for an improperly sagging sagulum, as he ruminates about watching the women stripping the dead Romans and Carthaginians of their possessions on bloody Tunisian sands.