Talk:Battle of New Orleans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An event in this article is a January 8 selected anniversary
|
|
Battle of New Orleans is within the scope of the WikiProject New Orleans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to New Orleans and the Greater New Orleans area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
|
Looking to help? Check out the New Orleans To-do List:
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Yep, check now. I also added an analysis.
Signed, Drake
[edit] Question
Hi, this is really my first time using Wikipedia (editing wise) so I don't really know what I am doing and if this will work, but I have a question. Do you have a link for John Lambert (I forget spelling for last name)? I am doing I report on the Battle of New Orleans and I need detailed information on all of the generals and/or officers, but I don't trust most a lot of sites I look up in google so maybe someone could give me a link, or make a link on the page.
Thanks. Oh, I don't know how to do the signature thing, but call me Baeryn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baeryn (talk • contribs) 01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] one more thing
Who is John Lambert, and why is he listed in the English Commander section? If anything, it should be Alexander Cochrane who was the commander in chief of the British war effort in North America.
--maestro876 7-8-2006
- I assume you didn't actually read the text of the article, wherein John Lambert is identified as the general who assumed command on Pakenham's death. Wikipedia identifies the commanders of the specific fighting units engaged in battle, not the overall commanders-in-chief (in which case James Madison ought to be listed in place of Andrew Jackson by your reasoning, and I think we can both agree that makes no sense, as the President of the United States is rarely involved in military decisions at the strategic level).--chris.lawson 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Post-Battle Analysis
I tried to add:
"The British government considered the Louisiana Purchase illegal, and therefore had they seized New Orleans, they could have retained it under the premise of returning it to its rightful Spanish owners. Thereafter, the British would have held control of one of the United States' key avenues for commerce, the Mississippi River, giving them a stranglehold on the American economy."
In place of:
"This is because it has been speculated that had the British been in control of the key port of New Orleans, they would have attempted to use this to seek additional concessions from the United States. However this is a somewhat falacious argument since the British government had already ratified the treaty. A comparison is with the Battle of the Saintes in the American War of Independence, which did have an effect as it actually affected peace negotiations."
It was reverted for the stated reason that there was no source for the claims. It seems to me, though, that what I replaced doesn't have any source either, so what makes mine worse?
Also, I think my argument makes sense. Cochrane and Pakenham knew that there was a peace treaty due at any moment, and that it was very likely that one was already on its way across the Atlantic towards them. If, as the previous writer argues, a British seizure of New Orleans would have been meaningless, why did Cochrane and Pakenham go ahead with the assault? Both were successful veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, and would not have needlessly thrown away the lives of their men. Clearly, the British commanders expected some sort of payoff for success since they went through with the attack.
Finally, it is an established fact that the Spanish government refused to recognize the validity of the Louisiana Purchase. Of course, by 1815, the government in Spain was one installed by Britain, and held their full backing. Therefore, despite the provision in the Treaty of Ghent stating that "All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this Treaty[...]shall be restored without delay", the British could have taken the position that the United States never legally possessed New Orleans in the first place, and therefore were not required to return it. Perhaps this was a flimsy justification, but since when did that ever stop the British?
-- maestro876 12:12am PST July 8 2006
[edit] Casualties
I've added a note in the source of the page (an HTML comment) advising editors not to change the casualty figures without understanding the difference between "casualties" and "dead". There seems to be a great deal of innocent confusion on the part of various editors. For clarification, "casualties" means "dead AND wounded". I -- or someone else -- have had to revert this about 10 times in the last six or seven months. Hopefully this will stop it. —chris.lawson (talk) 30 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)
To aviod confusion I put Killed or Wounded, for those who don't know what Casulties mean.- Mitran
- Yes, and I reverted it, because it's a) redundant and b) ugly. Clearly people who wish to change the numbers are going to do so regardless of their understanding of the concept of "casualties".—chris.lawson (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well than don't complain about having to keep on reverting it, if you are that stubborn.
dude go easy on the lad, he's trying to hlep -Wolfie001 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amusing
Usually the victors write the history; however this article is almost an editorial promoting the British POV. Hmmmm. Pollinator 05:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Feel free to correct any inaccuracies in the text. Bastie 13:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's a case of inaccuracies so much as a problem with who gets more face time. But, I did take off the comment proclaiming ladders to be an excellent plan, as that is subjective and really unknown whether it would've worked or not. Jared s 22 05:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Additions
It might be worth mentioning that Congreve rocks were used and that the American ramparts were made out of cotton bundles.
Maybe put a link to the National Park Service website for the battlefield?
- That's an excellent idea. Feel free to be bold and do it. :)—chris.lawson (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Though many commemorative prints show them, it's a myth that the American rampart was constructed of cotton bales. It was an earthen rampart, made of mud excavated from the Rodriguez canal and held in place with timbers scavenged from surrounding plantations. Some bales were used as platforms for the batteries, or to line the gun embrasures (until they caught fire). Jackson's topographical engineer, Howell Tatum, describes the construction, as does Major Latour, his chief engineer. Nolajake 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I reckon they'll just have to change the words to "We stood beside our earthen ramparts and didn't say a thing." That just doesn't flow the same, somehow. Wahkeenah 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Questions
Does anyone know how to identify the dead from this skirmish? I have an obituary for a man which reports his father died there. I want to find out who his father IS. Please advise: cedmonds@ursuline.edu
[edit] Ladders a Deciding Factor at New Orleans?
I am curious about the source of the conclusion that the lack of scaling ladders made the difference in the outcome of this battle.
I do not have my sources in front of me, but my understanding of the course of the battle, and a visit to the ground (much of which has washed into the Mississippi, yes, but much of which was intact, at least before Katrina,) lead me to nominate a number of other factors as more important.
1. The death of Lord Packenham at an early stage of the battle 2. The failure of a British doctrinal choice to approach the American lines, manned by militia reiforced by a few regulars, in full view over open ground, with the expectation that this would frighten the Americans away. 3. The relative effectiveness of the American soldiers' personal weapons, given the choice described in item 2, above; also their unexpected experience as warriors, since the American frontier was a pretty violent place.
Again, looking at the ground, which is very level, the American line was behind a shallow canal, and built up with some earthworks, but also "fortified" with cotton bales. The utility of ladders is not apparent in contemplating an assault on such a line. Fascines (bundles of sticks or straw) might have been useful to get across the canal, but most accounts of the battle suggest that American gun fire stopped most British formations well short of those lines.
See this article: http://www.danielhaston.com/history/war-1812/neworleans-battle.htm, purported to have been written by a former manager of Chalmette National Historical Park, the site of the battle. 199.233.178.253 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) David Keith Johnson, Seattle, WA
- The ramparts of New Orleans needed to be breached. Part of Pakenham's battle plan was to storm the ramparts with ladders. The battalions forgot the ladders on the march, and could not storm the ramparts. This is from a History Channel program on The War of 1812. Geosultan4 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of section
I removed this from the article:
==Analysis of British defeat==
{{POV-section}}[Shrinked after removal]
The British were defeated at the Battle of New Orleans because of a lack of preparation. It had been planned to bring ladders to mount the American rampart. In the actual battle, the British made a tactical mistake of great cost: The regiment in charge of assaulting with the ladders were delayed in forming, so Packenham chose to assault without them at the head of the column, and by the time they were able to reach the front, it was far too late
Contributing to the defeat was a lack of communication. Had the British troops been able to notify the entire attacking group that they did not have the ladders, the battle may have been salvageable, or, at the very least, a less costly retreat. However, the troops in the rear of the formation were waiting for the Americans to be chased off their rampart, at which point they would engage them. However, each small group of soldiers fought on its own. It was reported (though disputed) that a group was actually seen which had forgotten its weapons.
The last factor was weather, or rather a misjudgment of the weather. The British were stationed not only near a large swamp, but also at a much lower position. In the swamp, dense fog had made visibility low, and the British planned to use this to their advantage. They would be concealed in fog, while the Americans on the rampart above were exposed. On the day of the battle, Pakenham and his men stormed out of the swamp and up to the American rampart, only to discover that there was no fog where they were. Pakenham also waited too late in the day to attack, and any of the fog there may have been was gone.
Embarrassing for Pakenham, normally an excellent military strategist and tactician, simply made too many mistakes. This is considered one of the worst defeat in British history; one of Britain's top officers fell to poor planning.
This whole section is original research and possibly unverifiable. We do not do analysis here. Just state the facts. If you want to cite historians who analyzed the battle, that would be fine, but there is no need to do our own analysis. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually it was correct though uncited and perhaps before removing things you may consider reading history of the battle. The section above is in error but only at the point that the officer in charge of the regiment with the ladders went missing on the morning of the battle and was out of control of his troops. He was cashiered in disgrace. In both cases this is neither OR nor unverifiable Tirronan (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of text
Have removed following text (by soundly defeating the top military force in the world, the British army), as this is unsuported. The British Navy DID have a reputation as the best in the world even prior to Waterloo, but the British army did not. Even at Waterloo the British only won when a second non-British army (Prussian) came to their aid.
Fair enough you're right. Dermo69 22:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Decisive
How was this decisive anyway?The peace treaty had already been ratified by the British, it didn't change the outcome of the war. Dermo69 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps "lopsided" or "overwhelming" is a better word? "Decisive" isn't used in the context of "having decided the outcome of the war" but more "very clearly in favour of one side".--chris.lawson 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- No I don't agree.Just because a battle was "very cleary in favour of one side" should it be called decisive.Only if it was important in a strategic sense.Of course this battle was important in that it created a sense of national unity and accomplishment for the United States.But that's not strategic and conflictboxes should only be about war.And a victory should only be stated as deicisive when it changed the outcome of that war.And the battle of New Orleans did not. Dermo69 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- But look at definiton 1. Dermo69 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- As I suggested initially, if you can think of better wording, please feel free to use it.--chris.lawson 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- It changed the outcome of the campaign. The British goal was to capture New Orleans and control the Mississippi--they were decisively defeated in that goal because of the battle and they turned back (all before hearing about peace at Ghent). Rjensen 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I suggested initially, if you can think of better wording, please feel free to use it.--chris.lawson 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply but the battle could not have been decisive.The peace treaty had already been ratified by the British it just hadn't been heard about.The British couldn't have changed so the battle did not change the outcome of the war. Dermo69 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you're missing the point. The battle was decisive in both the first and third definitions of "decisive".--chris.lawson 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason the battle was "decisive", beyond the immediate goal of repulsion of the British forces at New Orleans, was the larger picture of the attitude it contributed to. After having beaten the British twice in the space of a generation, the Americans were convinced they could do anything. They still pretty much feel that way. Wahkeenah 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No-one can argue that the battle wasn't an immense victory for the Americans. However, chris. argues that this battle should be labelled as a decisive victory because the victory was total. Was it? There are many ways to counter that argument. For one thing, the British did not retreat from the South and were preparing to launch an offensive against Mobile for the following year, and the British also captured Fort Bowyer soon after their defeat at New Orleans. Another thing, if we went along with chris. and called every victory like New Orleans 'decisive', then wasn't Hull's surrender of Detriot 'decisive'? You see chris., you are taking all articles talking about the War of 1812 down a very slippery slope.
The other important consideration here, is that Wikipedia defines a decisive victory as "an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict". This is from the article entitled decisive victory. The important keywords is: influences the ultimate result of a conflict. The Treaty of Ghent was signed before the battle, and so the battle didn't have any influence on the outcome of the war.
If you want to argue that the battle was significant in cementing American pride, then show the evidence. As a member of the Wiki History Project I am aware of the importance of evidence. If no evidence is found that supports the aforementioned view, then the outcome section of this article will have to change to just plain 'American victory'.
Thank you. EasyPeasy21 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Vastly" powerful British army
I made both of the recent edits to this (once when I wasn't logged in). Although we are now directed to the relevant page of Ward's book, I would be a lot happier if this were directly quoted from an original source. I don't have the Ward book; having looked it up online, it appears to be a perfectly respectable scholarly book. One Amazon reviewer says: "Ward makes a very compelling argument and thouroughly supports it throughout the book with relative evidence including a variety of newspaper articles and headlines, political cartoons, speeches, poems, songs, letters, diaries, euolgies, government documents, and historical biographies." If this is the case, then presumably there is evidence for the 'vastly powerful' army quote; if so, could we have it, please. At the moment (bearing in mind that it's not in quote marks in the article), 'vastly powerful' could be written by any Wikipedian, and I have little way of knowing whether it's true or not.
One of the edit comments is that "Americans heard that Brits were shipping in the army that defeated Napoleon". You could pick holes in this if you wished; the army wasn't commanded by Wellington, and the British army at Waterloo was 67,000 strong, not 8,000. However, if that was what the Americans truly believed was attacking New Orleans then this is historically very interesting. But it should be presented as such: "the Americans believed a vastly powerful army, the same that had defeated Napolean, was coming" [and give contemporary source, e.g. "letter XYZ, cited on Ward p4"). At the moment we are given the impression that Jackson triumphed against vast odds, and I don't think 2-1, attacking a prepared position without artillery support, could reasonably be described as such. The British attack didn't even come close to success, and by the sound of it wouldn't have succeeded even without the ladders fiasco.
As I understand it, Ward is interested in how Jackson came to represent American ideals at the time, and presumably the popular belief he triumphed against 'vast' odds is part of this, and we should definitely have this in the article. But it should be presented as such, a belief, rather than a fact.
Yes I am British, but I don't think this is bias on my part; you can see similar myth-making in the British defeat of the Spanish Armada, for example. (The numbers of fighting ships (as opposed to ships mainly carrying troops) on each side were fairly similar; the Armada didn't have a 'vast' superiority). The myth is historically interesting, but it should be acknowledged as such.
--Merlinme 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Or, to put it more succinctly, if we say that a 'vastly powerful' army should always win a battle unless there are exceptional circumstances, what were the exceptional circumstances in this battle? It would surely be more accurate therefore to say that "The nation believed a vastly powerful British fleet and army had sailed for New Orleans", rather than "The nation knew a vastly powerful British fleet and army had sailed for New Orleans".
--Merlinme 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Remini (1:293) says "It was generally known [on East Coast] that an invasion force of monumental size had formed...to strike a blow." I changed that to "vastly powerful". The British War office wanted Wellington to take command but in the end they sent his brother in law Pakenham. The reports from Europe were that the British were sending Wellington's army (they sent part of it) and no one in US knew how many. Jackson himself said 25,000 were coming [Remini 1:237] (The fleet had about 14,000 men, 4 times what Jackson had.) Rjensen 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Which is all fair enough- why don't we put some of this in the article? I wouldn't quibble with a statement along the lines that "Jackson had inflicted a heavy defeat on a large force which had been widely feared would take New Orleans [and then quote Ward and the 25,000 figure here]. --Merlinme 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Could I have an answer to this please? Or I'm happy to make the edit myself if you'd prefer. Thanks, merlin. --Merlinme 10:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's needed. The point is that Americans were almust sure they would be beaten and then suddenly heard of a great victory followed by peace, leading to exultation. Rjensen 10:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've edited the article to clarify that the nation believed a vastly powerful army was coming, as this is surely the point. Hope you agree this is helpful. --Merlinme 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could I have an answer to this please? Or I'm happy to make the edit myself if you'd prefer. Thanks, merlin. --Merlinme 10:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would fix it myself, assuming I could anyway, but I have no other knowledge of this article and I'm sure there is someone more capable than I maintaining it. I did just notice, however, that the last sentence in the opening paragraph is not complete.
Thanks
WDRev 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Although the size of the British force was obviously exaggerated, as is often the case with historic battles of this sort, it can be said that the myth is partly based on truth because Jackson was a military amateur with a realatively poorly equipped army of amateurs fighting a feared army of far better-trained and better-equipped professionals.Shield2 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] numbers--Wiki relies on named experts
people who have alternative numbers of casualties that differ from Remini's standard work need to cite their sources and explain why they are credible. Rjensen 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but just about anything which differs from Remini is credible, as he is not. Need an example? Explain why his slim volume on the Battle has no footnotes, no sources. Why he states the Highlanders marched across the field in kilts when it is known fact they wear wearing trousers, ad infinitum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninety3rd (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Treaty of Ghent
This article should be made to show that: 1. News of the Treaty of Ghent did not reach anywhere in North America, not just Louisiana 2. The battle did potentially affect the outcome since by its own terms, the Treaty of Ghent did not end the war until exchange of ratifications, and not only had the U.S. not yet ratified, and didn't ratify until after news of this battle, but the British Diplomat could have had contingency instructions not to exchange ratifications if he had news that New Orleans had been taken and British diplomats often did have secret contingency instructions 3. Because, as referenced by another writer below, the British didn't regard the Louisiana purchase as being legitimate and there is some reason to believe that the British would have taken exactly that position with regard to not returning New Orleans if taken.
I have cited the source for all of this: “The War of 1812 by Harry L. Coles. 1965 by The University of Chicago. In the chapter titled “Jackson and the War in the South”
I can’t comprehend why I was blocked from editing when it was I who had a scholarly source and the other guy who was just continually revert editing without citing any sources. Clearly the wrong person was blocked. I am starting to understand why some have little regard for the Wikipedia, apparently facts don’t matter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.196.129 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2007
-
- date of news arriving on east coast is irrelevant in a history of the battle.
- Both nations had firmly decided on peace on Dec 24. The peace treaty was a technicality because it had no substantive changes to the status quo. As Coles points out we do not know what the British instructions were. HOWEVER we do know that when the british off Mobile heard of the Dec 24 treaty they immediately sailed home. Their instructions therefore must have been to sail home if peace came.
- The British as Coles points out were undecided what to do with Louisiana if they captured it. By December however Wellington had clearly insisted on peace as soon as possible. It would have taken a very strong force indeed to hold New Orleans with a huge American population nearby, and a continued very expensive and unnecessary war with USA.
- the main point is that both nations wanted peace and got it, the technicalities of ratification are irrelevant. Rjensen 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's probably pointless to do so, but please allow me to assert that England and America had not "firmly decided on peace on Dec. 24." That agreement was only signed by the American and British commissioners at Ghent, and both sides were aware that the war would not formally end until the treaty was ratified by both governments, and even then not until the signed ratifications were formally exchanged. That's how it worked, and there is documentary evidence that the British government fully intended to take advantage of the lull between the signing and the eventual exchange of ratifications. Especially with regard to Louisiana, which is nowhere mentioned in the Treaty of Ghent. Pakenham had written orders to continue hostilities until contacted by a specific representative of the Prince Regent, even if rumors of peace inclined him to do otherwise. Of course he was killed before he could execute those orders. Nor is it correct that the remaining British force at Mobile Point "immediately sailed home" upon receiving news of the treaty. Any number of contemporary sources tell us that they settled in to wait. According to Harry Smith, who was there, "[p]ending the ratification, it was resolved to disembark the whole army on a large island at the entrance of Mobile Bay, called Isle Dauphine." The war didn't end until the ratifications were exchanged in Washington on February 16, four days after the capitulation of Fort Bowyer. A copy of the ratification arrived at the island on March 5, after which "the army was prepared to embark." Some days after this, Jackson receives official word of the ratification, and lifts martial law in New Orleans, much to the relief of the locals. Clearly, "the technicalities of ratification" were far from "irrelevant" to these men. Nolajake 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Historians agree that both sides wanted peace on Dec 24--the British negotiators were under direct orders from London, where Wellington had told the government to end the war. Packenham's orders of course were written earlier. As soon as word came (Feb 13 1815) of the Dec 24 agreement the British broke off all military action and on March 17 (3 days after news of ratification) they sailed home. That suggests their orders were to cease hostilities as soon as a peace was signed. Look at the big picture: Wars end when both countries want them to, In this case Dec 24, 1814. Peace treaties may come years later (as with US and Japan which signed a peace treaty years after ww2 ended.) See Andrew Jackson's Campaign ...1813-1815 by Dunbar Rowland 1926. Page 372. Rjensen 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested, a far more balanced and authoritative study of the Battle of New Orleans and its wider geopolitical context can be found in Robin Reilly, The British at the Gates: the New Orleans Campaign in the War of 1812. 2nd ed.(Toronto: Robin Brass Studio, 2002). Wellington certainly had his opinion about the American War, but was not yet in position to tell his government what to do (Waterloo hadn't happened yet). The real debate was between Liverpool and Bathurst, the latter being the minister most directly involved with the Louisiana campaign. Bathurst was a key author of Pakenham's orders, written in October 1814 as peace negotiations proceeded in Ghent. Certainly there was broad support for peace in both countries, but it's also true that diplomatic protocols affected command decisions, as did the slow transmission of news in the age of sail. Instances of Anglo-American hostilities continued as late as April 1815, especially at sea. It is simply incorrect to assert that the War of 1812 ended on December 24, 1814. This is a persistent misconception that continues to leak into the discourse about the Battle of New Orleans and other late battles of the War of 1812. Nolajake 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Legalisms about the "official" date of ending a war don't mean much. The war ends when the nations no longer want to fight. What were the British orders (we don't actually know--they had NOT received new orders after Dec 24) Rjensen 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This will be my final contribution to the discussion, as I can see it is pointless to continue. Rjensen will no doubt want the last word, and can have it, with my compliments. But before one dismisses reasonable arguments as meaningless "legalisms" and makes broad statements concerning documentary history, one might take the trouble to actually research it. We do know what orders went back and forth on the British side in late 1814 and early 1815; they are recorded in the Admiralty and War Office records at the National Archives in Kew, and one can see references to them in the better scholarship on the battle (Reilly, Brown, Mahon, Buchanan, et al.). But perhaps the Wikipedia is not the right forum for such concerns. Best regards to you all. Nolajake 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Nolajake, if you are saying the British army only sailed home after they received notificaton of the ratification, then that is an important point and you should actually put that in the article, with its source, to avoid these long discussions in the future Deathlibrarian 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Before and after the war, the British still wanted to check growing U.S. expansion in North America and New Orleans was a excellent strategic point to do it from. Its importance to the War of 1812 may have been marginal, but its importance on its own was in many ways more important than the war itself. After the war, there was still great controversy over the conflicting interests of American expansion and British presence in North America; the conclusion of the War of 1812 did nothing to prevent it from continuing. The course of the First Seminole War shows that the terms of the treaty were not clear enough to end hostilities over such issues, some of which were only loosely related to the reasons for the outbreak of the War of 1812 resolved by the Treaty of Ghent and mostly just happened to end up being fought over during the same war. And any British presence in Louisiana that might have come as a result of a British victory at New Orleans would have been both legal according to the terms of the Treaty of Ghent (or at least, justified by the combination of legal grey areas and military superiority) and in Britain's interests. And there would not have been much the United States, a defeated nation with virtually no effective military left, surrounded by hostile powers, could have done about it. Naval hostilities did not even entirely end until several months later, and the loss of the most important seaport city on what was then the United States' southwestern frontier to Britain would have been a strategic disaster for the U.S. whether or not the treaty had then been ratified. Shield2 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] error
Hello, I'm new here & hope I'm observing the proper procedure for bringing to your attention a minor error in the article. It is claimed that "Major Gabriel Villeré commanded the Louisiana Militia..." In fact, Gabriel Villeré's father, Maj. Gen. Jacques Philippe Villeré, commanded the Louisiana militia. It's a small thing, but it caught my attention. General Villeré's papers are held by the Williams Research Center in New Orleans. Thank you. nO 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistency
In the article, the amount of casualties on the American side is 71 (13 dead, 39 injured, 19 missing), but in the bar at the top, it states the total is 101 (13 dead, 58 injured, 30 captured?). The same is for the British. The article states 2,037 (291 dead, 1,262 injured, 484 captured/missing). The bar states 2,055 (385 dead, 1,186 injured, 484 captured). If the Americans won, how were there captives? Why is it inconsistent? Is this vandalism? Which is correct? Help please. Geosultan4 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) -The British did take a few captives as they probed their way through the swamps of Louisiana, and also in the earlier skirmishes before the main battle. Those prisoners would be conducted to a prison ship at anchor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.247.60 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The British decided it would be too costly to take New Orleans, however their army was still mostly intact. The US forces, largely irregulars, didn't follow up on the attack, and stayed dug in in New Orleans. The British army was still free to do what it wanted on US soil.Deathlibrarian 07:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there's still a difference between the casualty figures in the article and those in the infobox. Example "On the night of December 23, Jackson personally led a three-pronged attack on the British camp which lasted until early morning. After capturing some equipment and supplies, the Americans withdrew to New Orleans suffering a reported 24 killed, 115 wounded and 74 missing or captured, while the British claimed their losses as 46 killed, 167 wounded, and 64 missing or captured." Yet the infobox claims the Americans suffered only 13 killed for the whole battle. Doc Meroe (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Where's Jean Lafitte?
Shouldn't there be some kind of mention of Jean Lafitte in this article? I've always been led to believe that he played a major part in this battle. Is this incorrect? Manxruler (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
He was there as was his brother, he brought cannon and gunners as well as supplies and ammunition to the fray I have a source and I will add it tonight. Tirronan (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
