Talk:Battle of New Orleans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

No Jean Lafitte? Ortolan88

Yep, check now. I also added an analysis.

Signed, Drake

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Might I refer you to definition 3 here.--chris.lawson 03:40, 24 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

1. date of news arriving on east coast is irrelevant in a history of the battle.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is only >>article is almost an editorial promoting the British POV<<, if one only believes Cecil B Demille movies. There is no argument it was a debacle for the British. The argument arises in WHY it was so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninety3rd (talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

First, just a minor nitpicky correction. It was Sir Edward Pakenham. He was not a Lord. I am trying to locate the memoir of a British officer who stated that they could have breached the rampart without ladders.Ninety3rd (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)ninety3rdNinety3rd (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Another bit of imput, regarding >in full view over open ground, with the expectation that this would frighten the Americans away<. The British advance on 8 Jan was under cover of night combined with heavy fog. The 2 main attack columns moved up beside the swamp and the river. The trees and brush of the swamp in the manner these were located at the time, also provided cover until the front of the column reached about 100 years from the parapet. (The modern day battlefield does not show this.) Note, these were "columns", not battle lines stretched out across the field. The British did not move up "in full view", despite what most cinematic versions of the story depict. The 500 men of the 95th Rifles advanced in skirmish order (spread out, working in pairs, keeping low, moving fast) in front of the columns, and were in the canal cutting steps in the parapet with their sword bayonets. The CO of the British 21st regiment died leading his men forward on top of the parapet. A lieutenant of the 21st found himself past the parapet inside the US lines, alone and - unopposed. He surrendered in disgust to 2 US officers who finally approached him. By the riverside of the parapet, the 400 man detachment of British light infantry companies had overrun a redoubt which was situated just in front of the parapet and were attempting to storm the main parapet. The commander of that detachment also died atop the parapet leading his men forward. Regarding the canal -- it was not so shallow as it is today. The ditch and parapet one sees today are a mere reference reconstruction of what Jackson's line actually looked like.

Re: >relative effectiveness of the American soldiers' personal weapons<. I might guess this refers to "rifles". In actuality the British probably had more rifles (500 of the 95th) than the Americans. The Kentucky militia arrived in rags and most were unarmed. A variety of weapons had to be scrounged for them (mostly farm tools) and the few firearms found were mostly not rifles and Jackson even described the weapons as being of bad quality. The Tennessee militia had, according to their own commander's memoirs, picked up around 1200 MUSKETS on their trip south, and while traveling downriver on barges were loading "buck and ball" -- a type of ammunition which is only used in muskets. The 2 US regular army regiments and the detachment of Marines were armed with the standard issue US military musket, as were most of the uniformed New Orleans militia units who had acquired their weapons from surplus. The majority of British casualties were inflicted by US artillery, firing nearly point blank into the formations with grape or cannister shot. It should also be noted almost the entire center of the US line probably never fired a shot, as there was no enemy in front of them. (The exception would be the US artillery, firing at the British artillery and, briefly, at the 93rd Highlanders as they moved diagonally across the field). Yes, I can provide sources for all this if asked. Ninety3rd (talk)Ninety3rd —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

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)

The most glaring error in the removed section was the bit about the "weather" and "fog". The fog there does not stop at the height of the parapet. I have in fact been there before dawn when the fog is so thick you cannot see past 10 feet. And that includes straight up! Ninety3rd (talk)ninety3rd —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

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)

I should add however, that that second non-British army (Prussian)arrived on the field according to the plan devised by the British general Wellington, who had sent word to the Prussians that he would hold at the ridge at Mt St Jean if they would march to reinforce him. And then there is the Peninsula War, and that Wellington fellow again, who never lost a battle in his entire career... Ninety3rd (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)ninety3rdNinety3rd (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the text around and about the >British retreating to the town of Madison<. Part of the reason for this was due to the ref given being to the online Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Battle of New Orleans which mentions no such thing. The other reason of course was that is was wholly inaccurate. Ninety3rd (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)ninety3rdNinety3rd (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy howdy that sure sounds good, except that I am one of the editors on the Battle of Waterloo and some of what you are saying is correct however the Prussians brought 3/4 of their army, the other 1/4 fighting off Groucy and keeping him from the battlefield as well. Wellington and Blucher worked that one out, Wellington asked for a Corp to support, Blucher brought 3 and it sealed Napoleon's fate. Now can we stop sounding like a add for Great Britain? She is a great nation without need for cheerleaders I assure you. Most American's favor her rather kindly as a matter of fact. Tirronan (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your response does not seem to counter any of what I mentioned, though it's intent seems to wish to do so. Blucher brought 3 Corps -- bravo for him doing so! The fact he was there at all was still, even by your own admission -- "Wellington and Blucher worked that one out.." As for the condescending lecture to "stop sounding like a add for Great Britain", I was born and raised in Texas, thank you very much, so "boy howdy" indeed. Ninety3rd (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)ninety3rd

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)

Good gad! It has been that long since I issued that challenge? Plus, Remini himself was on the battlefield spouting his usual jingoistic nonsense at the 190th anniversary. Though he was there, he failed to show up (or kept obviously quiet) at the annual 93rd/British Memorial Ceremony and repute any of what has been stated at such ceremony since 1989.

Once again....the defeat of the British at New Orleans was indeed a debacle for British forces. That does not lessen their bravery or attention to duty. It DOES however, put the lie to polemicists as Remini who do not back up their claims in their published works and only seek to sell slim volumes of vitriolic pablum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninety3rd (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

There is no documentation for the presence of Jean Lafitte himself at Chalmette during any part of the battle/campaign. A number of his men were there servicing artillery. If so important a figure was present, why does no one mention him? Ninety3rd (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)ninety3rdNinety3rd (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny I have a book that goes into it at some pain. I'm curious as to what sources are you quoting with such confidence? Tirronan (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing, you don't mention what this book is.Ninety3rd (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)ninety3rd

Funny thing, check my notes already in the article. As a matter of fact here they are:

• Borneman, Walter H. 1812 The War that forged a nation ISBN 0-06-053112-6
• Caffrey, Kate The Twilight's Last Gleaming ISBN 0-8128-1920-9 Stein and Day
• Patterson, Benton Rains The Generals, Andrew Jackson, Sir Edward Pakenham, and the road to New Orleans. 2008 ISBN 0-8147-6717-6

I have them all and I live in Dallas myself, opinions are plentiful, facts are a bit harder to find. Tirronan (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Then would you please list some of these "facts"? They are indeed a bit harder to find, as you say. You list 3 books. Funny thing, there they are in the notes, but not as referencing anything on Jean Lafitte.

Before the battle during the work on the American defensive line, there is mention made by Edward Livingston (who worked for Jean Lafitte as attorney) that it was Jean who recommended the US line be extended into the swamp. (Livingston to Jackson, Dec 25, 1814, Jackson "Correspondence" Vol II, p 125.) Latour makes no mention of this, but perhaps he didn't like being upstaged, even though he was one of those who urged Jackson to first meet with Lafitte about the pirate stores of powder and shot.

There are also references to be found that sometime during the battle due to the British success on the opposite bank Jackson sent "Lafitte" (but which one?) to advise Morgan about the canals and passages which the British might use to attack the city. If this is the case and it was indeed Jean who was sent, then we can safely again say he was not present during most if not all of the main conflict as he was "sent" away. So much for Fredric March heroically standing atop the parapet rallying the fighting.

"Lafitte's location during the action is a matter of speculation, but it is safe to say that he was not near any of the fighting." - Pickles, Tim. New Orleans 1815; Osprey Campaign Series, #28. Osprey Publishing, 1993.

Another funny thing, most of the books listed in The References section were put there by myself long ago. Ninety3rd (talk)ninety3rd —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

Dear Expert, 1, Osprey is a great series and lots of nice pictures, 2, Most of the information you seek will be found in the Benton Rain's book, I know I read it. 3, Lafitte was not the one sent period. Since I have all 3 books right here and right now and I rewrote most of the article some time back I might suggest that you cease with the snarky comments. I don't know you and I could care less for your backswiping in articles. Tirronan (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning a Lafitte being sent to advise Morgan, here is one place this can be found: "Jackson also sent Lafitte to advise Morgan about the possible canals and passages by which the enemy might penetrate the swamps to the city." Brooks, Charles B (1961). "The Siege of New Orleans", page 246. Seattle: University of Washington Press. OCLC 425116.
This passage is immediately followed by a reference ("48") which leads to page 309 in the "Notes" section: "48. Henry Adams, "History of the United States of America during the Second Administration of James Madison (New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1904), II, 377-79. Morgan, "General Morgan's Defense," p.24. Latour, "Historical Memoir", pp. 173, 175. "Major Howell Tatum's Journal," pp. 127-28. Gayarre, "History of Louisiana", p. 493. Jackson, "Correspondence", II, 132-33 (Jackson to Morgan, Jan. 8).

Here is another: "Only two gun crews of Baratarians, under Dominique You and Renato Beluche, were employed in Line Jackson on Dec 28 and Jan 1 and 8. These were the only Baratarians who saw any action. Jackson sent Lafitte himself with Major Michael Reynolds to "The Temple" on the west bank of the river to secure it. On Dec 25 Lafitte came back in time to make a recommendation to Livingston about extending Line Jackson into the swamp, (34) but he took no other part until Jan 8, when Jackson sent him again to the west bank, to Morgan." (ref 34: Livingston to Jackson, Dec 29, 1814, Jackson Papers, L.C.) Brown, Wilburt S, Major General USMC (Retired) (1969). "The Amphibious Campaign for West Florida and Louisiana, 1814-1815", pages 86-87, University of Alabama Press. ISBN 0817351000.

One more: "He also dispatched Jean Lafitte to the west bank to help plan a defense against a British advance...". Patterson, Benton Rains "The Generals, Andrew Jackson, Sir Edward Pakenham, and the road to New Orleans". Page 253. 2008 ISBN 0-8147-6717-6 Ninety3rd (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)ninety3rd

Then perhaps you might look into editing the article, it has been years since I worked on this article and if you care to improve it then by all mean's please do so. I don't remember all that many references to Jean being at the battle in Benton Rain's book but I will look it up. However I don't see myself or anyone else objecting to your editing so long as the sources are cited. The smart remarks I can do without this for the 2nd and last time. Tirronan (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Smart" or "snarky" remarks - you consistently bring this up. It would be no large task to throw back the same you have made repeatedly to me, including the above last comment, as I too can do without them. I have indeed edited the article on a number of occasions when blatant errors or re-edits containing errors were made. You launched into me on this discussion board concerning items being discussed *here*. My last comment above listed references and quotes from said references, with no "remarks" smart or otherwise, and no mention of you whatsoever, but it is apparent I am dealing with the argumentum ad hominem/crumenam. Have a nice day!Ninety3rd (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)ninety3rd

Per the Jean Lafitte article, the citations show that the Lafitte brothers bore letters of marque from Cartagena, with no documentation that they were revoked. To preserve consistancy in the article, therefore, I've changed the reference to Jean Lafitte's pirates to privateers. LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pea Island Location

In the article, Pea Island is stated to have been about 30 miles east of New Orleans, and it is implied the the island was in Lake Borgne. On the inset map, the entire lake lies within 20 miles of the city, which would make that impossible. However, the map is based on a survey that predated the battle by 95 years. Overlaid on a modern Google map, there is very little similarity in the shorelines. I have found no modern reference to Pea Island. Does it still exist?--Geometricks (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to venture a guess that it probably doesn't, that coast has radically changed in the last 200 years. Tirronan (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pea Island, or Isle de Poix, was located near the mouth of the Pearl River. The island was never inhabited, and was covered with marsh grasses and pools of brackish water. The British army used it as a mustering point for troops to be ferried across Lake Borgne to Bayou Bienvenue (known by the Brits as Bayou Catalan). There is still an unnamed island south and east of where the Pearl empties into the Mississippi Sound, but whether this is a remnant of the historical Isle de Poix or a more recent alluvial formation I am unable to say. Nolajake (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfree image?

The image currently illustrating the top of the article, File:Battle of New Orleans.jpg may not be free licensed. (While depicting an early 19th century event, it is a painting by a 20th century artist.) See Wikimedia Commons deletion request page for discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC) It should be col. not gen. Andrew Jackson as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Military_career —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.142.59 (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As it is from the Library of Congress and dates 1910 it is free of copy write per US Law more than 85 years old... --Tirronan (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sugar

I'm watching a History Channel Documentary, made in 2007, about Andrew Jackson and it specifically mentions in the Battle of New Orleans that the British used Barrels of Sugar as Gabions for their Artillery Positions. It also mentioned that when American Cannonballs destroyed the barrels of sugar, the sugar was scattered all over the Cannons which melted upon contact from the heat of the Cannons and greatly hindered the British Army's ability to reload and fire the now sticky and contaminated cannons. --Arima (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The History Channel got it a bit wrong. The British used the barrels right enough, but filled them with mud and dirt -- not sugar. www.jstor.org/stable/3054254 ninety3rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninety3rd (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time the liberal History Channel got it wrong.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pirates or Privateers

Did Jean Lafitte recieve a letter of marque from General Jackson for his service in this battle? As far as I know he did not so he was in fact a pirate and not a privateer at this time. I will wait for some sort of response before making changes to the battle box.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In the book "The Generals" Benton Rain Patterson on page 174 states they were operating under a letter of Marque from Cartagena, Columbia. By the rules of the day, they were Privateers though I'm sure their victims had some difficulty in telling the difference.Tirronan (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of New Orleans combat on Far West Bank

Adj. Lt. John (W.?) Nixon, de Jean's 1st Louisiana Militia, fought on the far west bank, until over-run when he spiked his two light cannon and retreated. The cannon and regimental flag may have ended-up in the War Trophy Room, Whitehall, England? He was the chief attorney for the City of New Orleans, and circa 1811 helped found a Masonic Lodge there. He was born McGuiresbridge, Co. Fermanagh, N. Ireland, April 23, 1787, and entombed Biloxi, June 4th or 7th, 1849, where he owned the Nixon House Hotel. Nixon Street, Biloxi, is named for him. His daughter Mrs. Martha Bell Nixon Warfield, 1818-1904, wed assistant New Orleans city attorney, Periguine "Perry" Snowden Warfield of Georgetown, D.C., close kin of base born Bessie Warfield who wed King Edward VIII of England. Perhaps the reason Edward did not marry her whilst King, is Kings could not wed base borns? ∞ focusoninfinity 11:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Capt. Peter Juzan and 52 Choctaws

If chief, Capt. Peter Juzan, inn keeper, Juzan Lake, Missisippi, let 52 Choctaws from the swamp ("...powdered the alligators behinds...", etc.) against the British right flank, you may want to mention, chief Capt. Peter Juzan's 52 Choctaws? He was later Choctaw conductor in the removal and his brother William Juzan, Chickasaw conductor. ∞ focusoninfinity 11:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

American Decisive Victory

From the archives, I see a previous thread that didn't seem to hold a clear consensus on calling it a decisive victory. I note scores of books which call it a decisive victory, however. I already cited one from Britannica in the infobox. Here are a few more that call it a decisive victory:

• Historical dictionary of the U.S. Army By Jerold E. Brown, p. 336.

• Frontier Militiaman in the War of 1812: Southwestern Frontier By Ed Gilbert, p. 52.

• Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Sourcebook By Francis D. Cogliano, p. 234.

• Ireland and the Americas: culture, politics, and history : a ..., Volume 2 By James Patrick Byrne, Philip Coleman, Jason Francis King, p. 837.

There are scores of books that annotate it that way....

I would like to see discussion & consensus on the matter as it seems that an IP keeps reverting despite the fact that it is sourced. What do other editors think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to those who call the battle a decisive American victory. I myself regard it as a more important victory than most Wikipedia editors do because I realize that although the battle was fought after Ghent, it was fought before that treaty was ratified, and so not fought after the war was over, as some have claimed. I do tend to think the battle was very important in that it prevented the capture of New Orleans and surrounding area, I am not convinced the British would quickly or readily have given it up after taking it, treaty or no treaty. It was also important in that it gave Americans a cause for pride and sense of (rightly or wrongly) having won the war. The only reason why I do question that it was a decisive victory is because I hold that term to a higher standard than most. To me, a decisive victory is a victory that clearly causes the winning side to win the war when they would otherwise have lost. I do not count any victory by the side that ultimately loses a war as being decisive. I am reluctant to say a victory was decisive when the outcome of the war itself is in as much dispute as it is. Still, I do come pretty close to considering it as a decisive victory. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed open questions as to the long term results had the British won. The problem is that after the treaty was signed its hard to say that it had an impact on the war, but we are playing a game of what if not what happened. However you do have at least a minority view by some historians that call it decisive. You could include a section in the article itself denoting that there is a minority view that the battle was decisive as supported by xyz historians, along with why they think that it is. The last time this came up I removed the decisive tag for the reasons you have given, the treaty was signed but not yet ratified.Tirronan (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this was certainly not a decisive victory. It served absolutely no strategic purpose (other then to galvanise American propaganda). If Britain intended to dishonour the treaty as you say, then why didn't they continue the campaign against the city of Mobile after Fort Bowyer had been captured?PyrrhusEP (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Again there are Historians, not you with an opinion, that have questions about the intent. That doesn't make it a fact, as I said I can't support a decisive victory because it could not have an impact. When the British force took Boyer, they left the next day when informed the war was over. That is the problem with what if. We have to deal with what was, like it or not. The best that can be done here is to accommodate a minority view section that deals with that item and it can't be very long either.Tirronan (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Tirronan is right that we have to use reliable sources and not our own opinions. I don't see a clear consensus formed so editors should not be reverting sourced material out of the article unless a consensus forms here to do so.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A problem of Wikipedia it's how everything becames banalized. Every big battle needs to be decisive, just be big isn't enought. When the first teorics defined a decisive victory, it was a battle that put a end to the war, as austerlitz or waterloo. In wikipedia there are so many decisive battles on the war of 1812 that i ask myself how many wars were fought. -Ilhador- (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not a decisive war. However the results were every bit as big as the results of the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Like the rest of the war there are a lot of things that are still open to interpretation. I rather like that about this war. If you want a project prove where the majority of the historians come down on the issue of if this battle was decisive or not. I'll live with the results either way.Tirronan (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I will not try anything cause I already learn that in wikipedia if a admin says you're wrong, you will be wrong no matter what. New orleans is a myth created by the americans to say that they win the war. -Ilhador- (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source which states that it is a myth or just your opinion? I've never heard this novel take before.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To cite a source, I can do worse than to cite from the entry for battle: "A decisive battle can cause the losing side to surrender." By definition, a decisive victory pushes the losing side to a decision - that it is time to surrender to demands or resort to treaty. As impressive as the victory in question was, it does not meet this criterion. As for the many historians out there previously noted, I do recall historian Barbara Tuchman cautioning us all to beware of historians with agendae. LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article is supposed to be center lined on modern historiography. So the offer is not in jest. You may gather that I personally don't really care one way or the other, but it will say where the article is supposed to be at in the victory box. It did stop any serious thought of further adventures westward below the Canadian border. If you want to the a survey of modern historians I would support the result provided you list the sources.Tirronan (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

'It did stop any serious thought of further adventures westward below the Canadian border.'

This assertion is incorrect. One minor reason for saying this is the attack on Fort Bowyer.

More significantly, there were plans for an offensive in the south. The start of 1815 was to see an offensive along the St Mary's river, with Royal Marine battalions to advance westward into Georgia (from Cumberland Island), and to be joined by Edward Nicolls and his forces advancing north from the Gulf Coast. After HMS Brazen arrived at Fort Bowyer and confirmed the ratification of the peace treaty, Cochrane was very concerned that Nicolls may not be aware of the cessation of hostilities. He sent letters to Appalachicola and to Pensacola, not being sure of the whereabouts of Nicolls, in order that he would return to his base at Appalachicola. (This is documented in Cochrane's letters, file ref ADM 1/508, as stored at The National Archives in Kew.)

Once news had filtered through to the Royal Marine battalions in Georgia of peace, they too ceased their advance, and retired to Cumberland Island.

I simply wanted to correct an assertion which I believe to be incorrect Keith H99 (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a battle that happened after the war ended can be described as decisive. I think American culture likes to delude itself into attaching importance to things that are insignificant. Someone above suggested this battle ended the war, it did not, the peace treated was already negotiated, and battles happened after this battle. The British force could have taken the city of Mobile, but simply left when they were informed that the war had ended. Someone also suggested that "the results were every bit as big as the results of the end of the Napoleonic Wars". What? Are you saying that the War of 1812 was as significant as the Napoleonic wars? Unbelievable. Even if it was, this battle had no effect upon the outcome of the War of 1812. This battle and the results were insignificant, the British were raiding up and down the coastline, some successful, some not. When the British force were informed that the war had ended, they just left. Why is the battle of Queenston Heights no longer described as decisive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Queenston_Heights when it had a significant effect on the course of the war, yet this battle which had absolutely no effect on the course of the war, still is? PyrrhusEP (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The war hadn't "ended", obviously, because it was still being fought by both armies, regardless of what was going on in Europe. The reason it was decisive was because if the British had taken control of New Orleans they would have held a major strategic position over the US and the US might not have ratified the Treaty of Ghent. Queenston Heights has since been changed, apparently, but if I were you I wouldn't complain on other articles' Talk pages about other battles. Do it there. I'm also fixing a few of your spelling errors for you. You don't have to thank me. 24.255.189.207 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. If Britain had captured New Orleans... the US wouldn't have ratified the treaty which left them at no disadvantage? It makes no sense. And next time you see a discussion which has been 11 months finished,don't jump in and try to have the last word despite being uninvolved. Rwenonah (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

The recent edits1 made to this page seem of questionable relevance and reliability. They include a reference to a wikipedia page(which contains no mention of the referenced sentence),and a mention to a poem which seems to have been almost unnoticed by anybody, possibly unpublished and of modern origin,as a quick Google will reveal.Worse still,it attempts to ti a 200-year old battle to drone attacks,which is both pushing a POV,irrelevant,and inappropriate to a wikipedia page. Its main source seems to be a joke essay by a "historian" of questionable reliability. And the whole lot(less the drone attack mentions) might be more appropriate as its own page,or on the Andrew Jackson page. These edits should be removed. What do other editors think? Rwenonah (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You have a point however; The most recent addition is nothing less that astonishing if it is true. Ronald J Drez has published no less than 3 military history books and claims to have the actual document from the British National archives. Should this be true then this has major implications both for this article and the War of 1812. I'd like to run it down but there is no way that I have time at this point in my life. Tirronan (talk) 06

17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Drez' assertion is nothing "new". The secret orders have been open and known about and referenced in numerous histories for well over 30 years at the least and have even been available to be read online for a number of years. What is "new" is how the book peddlers leave out quite a lot of the orders, and spin what they do mention into the old "Britain trying to reconquer America" yarn. Here is but ONE site should any choose to have a look: http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2011/Issue16/c_PakenhamOrders.html Ninety3rd (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 17:22, 30 July 2017‎ Barsle (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,495 bytes) (-43)‎ . . (→‎Night attack of December 23: Corrected name of West India Regiments from West Indies Regiments; deleted phrase suggesting they were from the West Indies, as many were from Africa.) (undo | thank) BARSIE correctly corrected the name of the regiments, however, he is incorrect in his reasons for the edit -- the 2 regiments were indeed recruited from the West Indies islands of the Caribbean. This is easy to look up and validate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninety3rd (talk • contribs)

Casualties, numbers don't match

- Casualties and losses: 285 killed

- The Battle of New Orleans was remarkable for both its brevity and lopsided lethality. In the space of twenty-five minutes, the British lost 700 killed, 1400 wounded, and 500 prisoners, a total loss of 2600 men; American losses were only seven killed and six wounded.[50][51]

--tickle me 02:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

'overwhelming force'

This is an imprecise description. Clearly the British force was not overwhelming, otherwise their operation against New Orleans would not have failed. If the intention is to indicate that despite a superiority of numbers the British were defeated then it would be better to say that, although it is in danger of flag waving for the victorious side. See- "the most one-sided battle of that war."

"...Major General Andrew Jackson. prevented a numerically superior/ much larger British force, commanded by Admiral Alexander Cochrane and General Edward Pakenham, from seizing New Orleans."

"Although heavily outnumbered... Major General Andrew Jackson, prevented a British force, commanded by Admiral Alexander Cochrane and General Edward Pakenham, from seizing New Orleans.

JF42 (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"the most one-sided battle of that war."

What does this mean?

How many "one-sided battles" were there? How do they compare? Is there a league table? JF42 (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that you haven't been keeping up with the box scores on the War of 1812 eh? Yeah, that wording is clumsy at best. I think the editor was trying to encapsulate the magnitude of the defeat. The British brought 10,000 really good troops to the field with an opponent that had at best 4,000 troops of shall we say varying degrees of expertise, to put it kindly. But all that aside, we need to state it more professionally. Tell you what, how about you proposing a change in that description?Tirronan (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I can only make stylistic adjustments as I am not on top of the details of the battle. The most obvious fat has been trimmed and flaws attended to. I have excised the reference to "the most one sided battle." It smacks of cheerleading and does not add to the article. If somebody feels strongly about the observation, they can try to factor it in. I haven't time to do any more.

JF42 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923165732/http://lahistory.org/uploads/UrquhartLHAHistoryFinal.pdf to http://www.lahistory.org/uploads/UrquhartLHAHistoryFinal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326190157/http://www.hnoc.org/BNO/bnopathindex.htm to http://www.hnoc.org/BNO/bnopathindex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Inconsitant Casulites

reading through the article there are no less than 3 differing casualties counts. I'd like to suggest we arrive at one set of figures, please? Tirronan (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Since all of the names once appearing as leaders in the Infobox have been removed (why, I don't know), should the box title be shortened from "Commanders and leaders" to "Commanders", or the names be restored? I would think the latter, but more heads are better than one.Lindenfall (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography

The biblio is covered in "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFArthur1915." harv warnings, which may have something to do with citation rather than cite book being used. The biblio should be in single column too as this keeps it alphabetical and stops in looking horrible. Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

mistake to say war ended Dec 1814 before the battle. ended in Feb 1815 after the battle.

The RS agree the war ended when both nations ratified the treaty of Ghent. 1) Article 1 of the Treaty stipulated: "All hostilities both by sea and land shall cease as soon as this Treaty shall have been ratified by both parties." Spencer C. Tucker (2012). The Encyclopedia Of the War Of 1812: A Political, Social, and Military History. ABC-CLIO. p. 943. 2) "Although U.S. and British commissioners had concluded a treaty on 24 December 1814, the war had not ended on that day. It is therefore a mistake to believe that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the war had ended. The U.S. government in Washington learned of Jackson's victory on 4 February 1815, followed two days later by the arrival of the official copies of the Treaty of Ghent. The British Parliament ratified the treaty on 30 December 1814; the U.S. Senate followed suit on 16 February 1815." Joseph Frederick Stoltz (2014). The Gulf Theater, 1813-1815. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 44. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've studied this battle to some extent. It might be more correct to say that the peace treaty was in process of the exchange of ratification. Also, the point was brought up that further actions were being considered by the British Government and that the battle rather ended any contemplation was put paid to by the battle. Can you expand on that, please? Tirronan (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

To state at the start of the article that the Treaty of Ghent had been signed but that the forces involved didn't yet know this seems to suggest that the battle would not have been fought had they known. I think it would still have been fought because they would also have known that the treaty had not been fully ratified and was not in effect. When USS Constitution fought Cyane and Levant on 20 February 1815 Captain Stewart knew that the treaty had been signed but did not yet have word of it having been fully ratified and so that battle was fought anyway. So why would it have been any different at New Orleans? Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This page is innaccurate

the article was changed so that it only provides information on the December 8th battle, not the other engagements, such as the night attack & battle of lake Borgne. Is there any chance someone could find the old source for this and change it back to the accurate figures.

Agree with History Man1812, this page has been transformed, not for the better. The night battleis barely mentioned. As I noted previously (above), the list of leaders have also been removed, which is odd, compared to other pages. It appears that a lot needs to be restored. Lindenfall (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

We'd better do something about it, maybe make a New Orleans Campaign box, and put in the separate battles under it, and make a overall new orleans engagement article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by History Man1812 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree, sorry to see so little discussion ensue, while the page seems rather gutted and in need of restoration. (Please also see my note re: disappeared Leaders, above). Lindenfall (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Battle of New Orleans description

Making a clarification to AlbionJack and Tirronan on comments made about the final major battle of the conflict. Many sources point to New Orleans as the final major battle, casualties at Fort Bowyer were drastically lighter and no sources suggest it was major at all, tactically or strategically. British troops and sailors sustained heavier casualties after Fort Bowyer during the Capture of HMS Cyane, HMS Levant and HMS Penguin. Engaging with Penguin, American forces repelled a boarding attempt and aggression against their cruiser base at Tristan da Cunha. So I'd assume those could be classified as major engagements as well. But regardless of opinions, sources only point to New Orleans as the final major battle. I apologize if I've been disruptive, I should have brought this to the discussion page prior to major article editing. MarkMcCain (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

yes -the best way to resolve this sort of issue is to track what the RS say rather than ignoring them. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Fort Bowyer assault was fairly minor and the sources would back that. My only issue here was that reversions were taking place without discussion or RS sources being quoted. Tirronan (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, my apologies once again. If we've acknowledged New Orleans as the final major battle, based on what was just said, is it safe for someone involved in the discussions to include the word "final" alongside the current context without violating any rules or further disrupting anything? MarkMcCain (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• It'd probably help to clarify that the assault on Fort Bowyer was relatively minor in the Aftermath section. That's not clear to me reading it now. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Where? I don't see anything in either aftermath section that suggests it wasn't minor. There's a weird fixation with Fort Bowyer, it was a tiny fort withdrawn from after its capture. Not to mention the last two battles taking place just after were British defeats. Anyway, I'm just gonna leave everything the way it is - I've lost interest in this issue, frankly. MarkMcCain (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Right. I was suggesting to explicitly say it was minor or something similar as supported by the sources. However, this has not been where the back and forth edits have taken place. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added a few words in context to the Fort Bowyer description to make it more apparent. See here and tell me what you think. MarkMcCain (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, but the other article is another matter. And the disruptive IPer reverted your addition with various claims again. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you get a lot of British fanboys that can't stand the British forces losing under any circumstance. That fact is almost balanced out by American idiots that want to declare this a decisive battle regardless of the fact that it happened while the peace treaty was being ratified. So this article has seen its share of drift. I'd suggest going through the history of this article and finding a better copy.Ninety3rd (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Tirronan (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That is hilarious coming from you Tirronan! You constantly accused me of being a "British fanboy" (which I am not, I simply edited facts) while yourself posted rubbish and endless "idiocies". The problem with the page today began in your lap. Ninety3rd

Yeah I vaguely remember a conversation with you about a decade ago. Sheesh grow up and move on.Tirronan (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ratification of the Treaty of Ghent

1) I was always taught that the war ended when the treaty was signed, even though I was later taught that treaties have to be ratified by the Senate (I never realized the contradiction) 2) In the UK, for example, treaties don't have to be ratified by the legislature, so, for both Americans who were not taught correctly in school and foreigners who do not know how the system works here, it's best to say it still had to be ratified. Esszet (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, the war did end when it was signed, at least for one of the major parties, uou can say that the war didn’t end for the US until ratification, but the news of the signing still had to travel, so adding brackets with (it wasn’t ratified yet) is completely unnecessary. 148.252.128.211 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you really have a war that's legally only over for one side? And you "can say"? No, under the Constitution, it wasn't. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect a global point of view, you're just assuming people will know that treaties don't take effect here until ratification, and most Americans don't even realize the contradiction. Esszet (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You are contesting this statement- “ which formally ended the War of 1812 on December 24, 1814, as news of the agreement had not yet reached the United States from Europe.” the Treaty did indeed formally end the war, and it was indeed signed on December 24 1814, the lede directly reflects the body of the article, in fact the ratification is explained in sections Aftermath, and Background. Therefore the lede, long-standing as it is, should remain under WP:V, it accurately reflects the body of the article in a concise way, and the article goes on to explain the issue you have a gripe with, it is fine as is. 148.252.128.211 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It didn't take effect until later, so it didn't end the war on that date, it was simply signed on that date. It would better reflect the body (specifically "the United States having resolved that hostilities should cease pending imminent ratification") if it was changed. It would not come at a major cost to concision, either. Esszet (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats not what the lede says, it says “18 days after the signing of the treaty of Ghent, which formally ended the way of 1812” - did the treaty formally end the war of 1812? The answer is yes, the peace treaty did so. “...on December 24, 1814” - was it signed on December 24, 1814? Yes. The lede doesn’t state that the war ended on December 24, it states that the treaty was signed then, and that the peace treaty formally ended the war, both these are correct statements and supported by the article. Your issue with ratification is misplaced, and also, already explained in the body. 148.252.128.211 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You just said that is what it says. Esszet (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I know, but after fully reading the body it’s actually plainly clear what the lede is implying, as ratification is explained quite well in aftermath. 148.252.128.211 (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the lede is wrong, the war did not end on that date. Esszet (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to add, what 15-20 words here? Seriously. Esszet (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No it’s not wrong, the date is when it was SIGNED, and “formally ended the war” is correct. Unless you want to start changing the lede in Treaty of Ghent too, which states “The Treaty of Ghent was the peace treaty that ended the war of 1812”. What you’re wanting to add is already in the body. 148.252.128.211 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is wrong, the war did not end on December 24, 1814, so the treaty did not "formally end the war on December 24, 1814." From the lede from the article on the treaty itself: "The treaty did not take effect until the US Senate advised and consented to ratification, which occurred unanimously on February 16, 1815." You don't take me for much, do you? Esszet (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Now you’re being nonsensical, the full sentence is “..after the signing of the treaty of Ghent, which formally ended the war of 1812 on December 24, 1814” it’s quite patently obvious the date is referring to when it was signed, as it literally states so 6 words earlier in the sentence. Yes the lede states that in treaty of Ghent, while also describing the treaty as what ended the war of 1812, which is seconded in this article. I don’t care much for you at all to be honest, your last quip is irrelevant. 148.252.128.211 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure, nanny-nanny-foo-foo to you too. Yeah, when it was signed, not when the war ended. Esszet (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there something you're afraid of? I don't know what's going on here. Esszet (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course when it was signed, as it says “18 days after the signing”, if you would like to add “..which formally ended the war of 1812 on December 24, 1814 though it would not be ratified by the United States until February 16, 1815.” I would be happy to compromise, as it maintains the lede but adds context that appears later in the body. 148.252.128.211 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There. Esszet (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, I hope you have a wonderful evening and enjoy the playoffs if you’re watching. 148.252.128.211 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope you have a good night too. Esszet (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Campaign Article

Since the old Battle of New Orleans article was edited to only include information regarding the Battle of Chalmette Plantation in the infobox, an article fully detailing the full New Orleans Campaign, including the fighting at Fort Bowyer, Battle of Lake Borgne, Night attack, and other fighting should be made. Alternatively, edit the existing article to include a New Orleans campaign infobox and add infoboxes for each battle detailed on the existing article, OR simply include all casualties in the existing infobox. History Man1812 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

Strength of British on right bank

I am seeing mention in the article there were 780 men and 700 men, but the primary sources that I have seen would have the number at about 600 men. Keith H99 (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The letter from General Lambert to the Secretary of State for War dated January 10, which mentions the original plan was to send over a larger force of a further 100 sailors, a further 300 marines, four cannons with gunners and the battalion of the 5th West India Regiment. This letter is reproduced in part in Smith's book, and in its entirety in the London Gazette of 9 March 1815, on page 437.

In the same edition of the London Gazette is Colonel Thornton's despatch from the right bank of the Mississippi to General Pakenham, on page 440

'We were unable to proceed across the river until eight hours after the time appointed, and even then, with only a third of the force which you had allotted for the service.'

Up to now I have been puzzled by the reference to 'only a third of the force', but this now makes sense.Keith H99 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Admiral Cochrane "insisted tha this boats were providing everything needed"

"Pakenham wanted to use Chef Menteur Road as the invasion route, but he was overruled by Admiral Cochrane, who insisted that his boats were providing everything needed.

What does this comment of Cochrane's refer to? If it means 'a water-borne approach would suffice' then that would be better clarified. JF42 (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Page 21 of a 52 page document, lacking in inline citations, authored by Joseph P Stoltz makes mention of Cochrane questioning Lieutenant Jones, captured after Lake Borgne. He bluffs Cochrane, telling him there are strong defences guarding the Rigolets. Cochrane accepts this at face value, so has to find somewhere else to land.

The tension between Cochrane and Pakenham gets a mention in an article with inline citations, hosted on the smallwarsjournal domain, with a link in the article. I think this gives a bit more context about the comment you mention. This is contained within the "Principles of Joint Operations: Unity of Command" header.

The secondary sources I have seen are indicating there was a trek of 60 to 70 miles from where the British disembarked to the battlefield at Line Jackson. Traversing the marshy land would have been a far cry from the Iberian landscape, for those who had seen service in Spain.Keith H99 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Benton Rain's book talked about it. Pakenham didn't like the route chosen for him by Admiral Cochrane. He considered the route too easy to block. He considered the Chef Menteur Road the superior approach. The Admiral overruled him on the matter threatening to use his sailors if Pakenham refused. General Pakenham couldn't go back to England under that kind of cloud and proceeded against his judgment. That was what Lord Wellington was bitterly referring to in his comments at Pakenham's funeral.Tirronan (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Plans to annex New Orleans by the British

Alturas70, I see you added the following comment

British military communications indicate that Great Britain intended to take and keep New Orleans which would have halted the westward expansion of the United States.

Please can you add an inline citation as to where this claim has come from. At present this claim is unsubstantiated and standalone. Keith H99 (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)