Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Few thoughts about New Orleans.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Few thoughts about New Orleans.

    Okay, we all know the story, right?

    A buttload of British troops marched on New Orleans, which was defended by Andrew Jackson and a motley crew of ragtag regulars, pirates, and militia. Jackson pasted the Brits, became a national hero, rode it right to the White House, but the battle meant nothing, because the peace treaty was already signed and the war was technically over...

    right?

    Not so fast.

    The war was technically over, but so what? The peace treaty had been signed on Christmas Eve, 1814, that much is true. The Battle took place on January 8th, 1815. That much is also true. But the war was technically over, but was it legally over? The US Government did not learn that the treaty was signed until February 17th. When the British were busy dying with their boots on at New Orleans, the treaty hadn't been ratified by either government.

    Another thing to consider: General Edward Parkenham, a veteran of the war against Napoleon (and Wellington's brother-in-law...I didn't learn that until recently...small world, huh?) had orders to set up a civil government in New Orleans. They would then have control of the Mississippi River and could have threated the US all the up the river to St. Louis. Had the British won, they might have decided to stick around. The British Empire, say what you will, was not built by retreating from victories (as historian Stephan Ambrose put it). And in any event, with the peace treaty not yet ratified by either government, legally they probably could have done so.

    Jackson himself, as he left the White House when his terms as president came to an end, was asked about the significance of the battle, since the historians were already writing the now accepted belief that since the war was over, the battle meant nothing.

    Jackson didn't think so. But since he was well-known as a man who despised the British with a passion, we can't ignore the man's bias. Still, his words are quite telling:

    "If General Parkenham and his 10,000 matchless veterans could have annihilated my little army, he would have captured New Orleans ans sentried all of the contiguous territory. Though the war was technically over, the British would have immediately abrogated the Treaty of Ghent and would have ignored Jefferson's transaction with Napoleon."

    Undoubtedly, the British could not have been happy with the Louisiana Purchase. It was their old mortal enemy, France, selling off their American territory to a new enemy, the Americans, to finance Napoleon's wars in Europe. It made an ugly duckling called the United States stronger, and bolstered the ability of the French to make war. The British were receptive to the idea of an American-Anglo alliance against the French, and even though the US tried to be neutral, the Purchase gave certain members of Parliament the idea that the US had in fact chosen sides. Of course, the British ignored that the French Navy was capturing as many American ships as their own Royal Navy, and the deal had little to do with any support for Napoleon, at least in Jefferson's mind.

    These are a few tidbits that I ran across lately. Make of them what you will. Seriously, what do you think?
    "Yellowstain!"

  • #2
    Originally posted by RapierFighter View Post
    Okay, we all know the story, right?

    A buttload of British troops marched on New Orleans, which was defended by Andrew Jackson and a motley crew of ragtag regulars, pirates, and militia. Jackson pasted the Brits, became a national hero, rode it right to the White House, but the battle meant nothing, because the peace treaty was already signed and the war was technically over...

    right?

    Not so fast.

    The war was technically over, but so what? The peace treaty had been signed on Christmas Eve, 1814, that much is true. The Battle took place on January 8th, 1815. That much is also true. But the war was technically over, but was it legally over? The US Government did not learn that the treaty was signed until February 17th. When the British were busy dying with their boots on at New Orleans, the treaty hadn't been ratified by either government.

    Another thing to consider: General Edward Parkenham, a veteran of the war against Napoleon (and Wellington's brother-in-law...I didn't learn that until recently...small world, huh?) had orders to set up a civil government in New Orleans. They would then have control of the Mississippi River and could have threated the US all the up the river to St. Louis. Had the British won, they might have decided to stick around. The British Empire, say what you will, was not built by retreating from victories (as historian Stephan Ambrose put it). And in any event, with the peace treaty not yet ratified by either government, legally they probably could have done so.

    Jackson himself, as he left the White House when his terms as president came to an end, was asked about the significance of the battle, since the historians were already writing the now accepted belief that since the war was over, the battle meant nothing.

    Jackson didn't think so. But since he was well-known as a man who despised the British with a passion, we can't ignore the man's bias. Still, his words are quite telling:

    "If General Parkenham and his 10,000 matchless veterans could have annihilated my little army, he would have captured New Orleans ans sentried all of the contiguous territory. Though the war was technically over, the British would have immediately abrogated the Treaty of Ghent and would have ignored Jefferson's transaction with Napoleon."

    Undoubtedly, the British could not have been happy with the Louisiana Purchase. It was their old mortal enemy, France, selling off their American territory to a new enemy, the Americans, to finance Napoleon's wars in Europe. It made an ugly duckling called the United States stronger, and bolstered the ability of the French to make war. The British were receptive to the idea of an American-Anglo alliance against the French, and even though the US tried to be neutral, the Purchase gave certain members of Parliament the idea that the US had in fact chosen sides. Of course, the British ignored that the French Navy was capturing as many American ships as their own Royal Navy, and the deal had little to do with any support for Napoleon, at least in Jefferson's mind.

    These are a few tidbits that I ran across lately. Make of them what you will. Seriously, what do you think?
    Agreed! All very true! I have maintained this for years and somewhere in the archieves, there is another thread where we argued this same point and to the very same end.
    "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

    Comment


    • #3
      Jackson didn't think so. But since he was well-known as a man who despised the British with a passion, we can't ignore the man's bias. Still, his words are quite telling:

      "If General Parkenham and his 10,000 matchless veterans could have annihilated my little army, he would have captured New Orleans ans sentried all of the contiguous territory. Though the war was technically over, the British would have immediately abrogated the Treaty of Ghent and would have ignored Jefferson's transaction with Napoleon."



      excellent analysis.... as many mainstream historians have considered it quite likely that the or a continued British prescence in NO area would have signficantly hindered expansion to the SW and far west and quite probably could have tipped the balance in the emergence of the Texas Republic. Or at least the alliance that might have been... could have... been made... in the infancy of the same.

      best
      CV

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
        Jackson didn't think so. But since he was well-known as a man who despised the British with a passion, we can't ignore the man's bias. Still, his words are quite telling:

        "If General Parkenham and his 10,000 matchless veterans could have annihilated my little army, he would have captured New Orleans ans sentried all of the contiguous territory. Though the war was technically over, the British would have immediately abrogated the Treaty of Ghent and would have ignored Jefferson's transaction with Napoleon."



        excellent analysis.... as many mainstream historians have considered it quite likely that the or a continued British prescence in NO area would have signficantly hindered expansion to the SW and far west and quite probably could have tipped the balance in the emergence of the Texas Republic. Or at least the alliance that might have been... could have... been made... in the infancy of the same.

        best
        CV
        Had the British remained in New Orleans, stopping any further American Western Expansion, plus choking off over 1/3 of the agricultural and manufactured goods produced within the interior United States, then a third war would soon have to be fought to expell the British. A President of Jackson's mettle would have insisted upon it.
        "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

        Comment


        • #5
          Indeed i concur and relations between the British and the fledgling US were strained in my opinion for and beyond the days of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight".

          best
          CV

          Comment


          • #6
            Ah... the continuing perceptions to often taken exclusively from a North American land lubbers perspective...

            New Orleans was far from the 'end all, be all' of continental concerns when it occurred... Any deviation from Ghent would be very far from any semblance of British/American better interests - both at the time... & for the future. I am quite certain that New Orleans - though very significant - would yield very little change in 'Ghent' - had England won.

            Jackson's sentiments are based upon purposeful & prideful ignore-ance of far larger English concerns. Ghent was already a much larger win/win than any conclusion at New Orlean. England had far more to lose by ignoring it 'in victory'... than America could have lost 'in defeat' at New Orleans.

            This, of course, can only be seen by most that recognize it... in hindsight, it seems.

            On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

            ACG History Today

            BoRG

            Comment


            • #7
              Ah... the continuing perceptions to often taken exclusively from a North American land lubbers perspective...



              yupper that's an Admiral for ye....he understands ya can't run far while at sea.

              best
              CV

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Admiral View Post
                Ah... the continuing perceptions to often taken exclusively from a North American land lubbers perspective...

                New Orleans was far from the 'end all, be all' of continental concerns when it occurred... Any deviation from Ghent would be very far from any semblance of British/American better interests - both at the time... & for the future. I am quite certain that New Orleans - though very significant - would yield very little change in 'Ghent' - had England won.

                Jackson's sentiments are based upon purposeful & prideful ignore-ance of far larger English concerns. Ghent was already a much larger win/win than any conclusion at New Orlean. England had far more to lose by ignoring it 'in victory'... than America could have lost 'in defeat' at New Orleans.

                This, of course, can only be seen by most that recognize it... in hindsight, it seems.

                You are forgetting several important historical facts, one of which already written: "Another thing to consider: General Edward Parkenham, a veteran of the war against Napoleon (and Wellington's brother-in-law...I didn't learn that until recently...small world, huh?) had orders to set up a civil government in New Orleans. They would then have control of the Mississippi River and could have threated the US all the up the river to St. Louis. Had the British won, they might have decided to stick around. The British Empire, say what you will, was not built by retreating from victories (as historian Stephan Ambrose put it). And in any event, with the peace treaty not yet ratified by either government, legally they probably could have done so."

                Before leaving England, Packenham had been informed by the British Prime Minister that he should "prosecute this war, and in particular, the upcoming military operations against New Orleans without any regard towards the Peace Talks currently being held in Ghent."

                Great Britain was concerned about a greater and immensely stronger United States stretching from Atlantic to the Pacific and did all and everything in its power to keep this from happening. For as Napoleon rightfully observed after signing the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, "I have at last created a world power that will one day humble England's pride."

                One of the unresolved articles of the Treaty of Ghent involved British Free Navigation on the Mississippi River. After England's long history of arming the Indians and stirring them up against the US Government, there was no way that the US would allow British-flagged merchant or warships free passage on the Mississippi River. British free navigation was revoked by 1817 and another war almost broke out between the two nations. As a result, Great Britain closed the Grand Banks to US fishermen.
                "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Treaty of Ghent is most significant for what it does not contain, more than what it does contain, if you will...

                  Read it.

                  1. Tell me what it says of the specific causes of the war.

                  2. Tell me what it says of the resolution of those specific causes mentioned.

                  Oh wait... neither can happen because neither really exists.

                  A. I submit - contrary to orders given to 'prosecute regardless of peace talks' - that such orders - given before departure from England - cannot be dismissed... nor can they be immune to altered wishes & desires so held well after they were given - all due to real & desired cessation of hostilities by treaty.

                  This said... due to the treaty:

                  B. The question of Canada was resolved between the United States & England for all time since.

                  C. England - long urgently concerned with European commerce - recognized that Napoleons defeat had cost its citizens greatly & had imposed - no longer required - hardship upon them to achieve said victory. They no longer had much real need to continue such sacrifice, nor had the true desire for its continuance. The end of English/American hostilities allowed for a certain modicum of relief of English hardships that would have continued by virtue of its American campaigns, pursuits & needs for supply & support - all for very little gain in comparison to what English citizenry had endured for the very real gains inherent in Napoleons downfall.

                  D. Though shaky in its beginnings, the Americans had reestablished their military capability & determined desire to effectively campaign & engage in battle where it chose & when required. Even in combat against such quality of forces as the English veterans of Napoleons defeat. The end of hostile English military operations upon the North American continent bore huge dividends at home... this by virtue of cost savings, material, manpower & garrison required to sustain even a tangible presence in the United States in an ongoing conflict.

                  E. Americas Navy had shown itself fully able to match & often exceed the best of England's best frigates in combat at sea. Americas stands of Live Oak, her innovative naval designs, & her certain ability to continue, as well as increase its naval power at sea - should hostilities continue - would cause a continuously increasing cost, casualty rate in warships, requirement of ever more vessels for the protection of commerce & replacement of vessels lost while engaged in commerce. Cessation of hostile English naval engagements against American naval warships & vessels of commerce yielded huge dividends at home & throughout the empire... this by virtue of cost savings, material, manpower, & warships required to sustain hostile action against the American navy at sea. Not to mention the increase of commerce between them, by itself.

                  F. ...

                  Let me just cut to the quick, mates... Under the stress & strain of Napoleons threat upon the continent of Europe alone, England had somewhat abandoned many of her own beliefs & ideals in regard to the rights of her own citizenry. Continuance of English hostilities on the North American continent would provide little relief for as long as England remained embroiled in the conflict. With the treaty of Ghent, England was able to accomplish far more for her people than she could ever hope to gain in its absence - as I've simply & coherently illustrated previous. Many began to recognize that - though the United States was a belligerent & unruly child in their eyes - she was still very much a child of England & sibling of all her other children. The United States was much as blood relation... not as England's historic European antagonists. Even the Americans - in the absence of hostilities - felt kinship with their English & northern neighbors to a degree that no other nations could enjoy. Some of the wisest in England recognized properly that the potential for commerce & common cause with America could & would far exceed any bounty England might extract by offensive means & maintenance of untenable lands & properties in a land so removed from their total dominance & means to sustain it... this, against a people that they knew would never yield.

                  As mentioned previously, Both nations reached an agreement by which neither admitted guilt or claimed victory, doing it in such a manner as not to subject or be subjected to blame, claim or judgment of/or by the other.

                  Agreements were made... yes... & agreements were later altered or abated by various means, but Ghent gave England far more in the doing than any degree of victory at New Orleans could have ever provided. Regardless of orders issued before departure from England... the Treaty did change all authority of it. We can engage in 'what if' or 'would or wouldn't' till the cows return to the barn, but we cannot deny that England had more to gain as it turned out, than the United States had to lose as it might have been. In the end of it, England could not have held all that it might have gained, but for only so long. A die had been cast in the American psyche by the 1st War with England which could never be extinguished by the 2nd War with England.

                  Yeah... just me opinion, be it what it may...

                  Last edited by Admiral; 09 Nov 07, 14:27. Reason: Spellin. Shulda staid in skuol...
                  On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                  ACG History Today

                  BoRG

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Admiral View Post
                    The Treaty of Ghent is most significant for what it does not contain, more than what it does contain, if you will...

                    Read it.

                    1. Tell me what it says of the specific causes of the war.

                    2. Tell me what it says of the resolution of those specific causes mentioned.

                    Oh wait... neither can happen because neither really exists.

                    A. I submit - contrary to orders given to 'prosecute regardless of peace talks' - that such orders - given before departure from England - cannot be dismissed... nor can they be immune to altered wishes & desires so held well after they were given - all due to real & desired cessation of hostilities by treaty.

                    This said... due to the treaty:

                    B. The question of Canada was resolved between the United States & England for all time since.

                    C. England - long urgently concerned with European commerce - recognized that Napoleons defeat had cost its citizens greatly & had imposed - no longer required - hardship upon them to achieve said victory. They no longer had much real need to continue such sacrifice, nor had the true desire for its continuance. The end of English/American hostilities allowed for a certain modicum of relief of English hardships that would have continued by virtue of its American campaigns, pursuits & needs for supply & support - all for very little gain in comparison to what English citizenry had endured for the very real gains inherent in Napoleons downfall.

                    D. Though shaky in its beginnings, the Americans had reestablished their military capability & determined desire to effectively campaign & engage in battle where it chose & when required. Even in combat against such quality of forces as the English veterans of Napoleons defeat. The end of hostile English military operations upon the North American continent bore huge dividends at home... this by virtue of cost savings, material, manpower & garrison required to sustain even a tangible presence in the United States in an ongoing conflict.

                    E. Americas Navy had shown itself fully able to match & often exceed the best of England's best frigates in combat at sea. Americas stands of Live Oak, her innovative naval designs, & her certain ability to continue, as well as increase its naval power at sea - should hostilities continue - would cause a continuously increasing cost, casualty rate in warships, requirement of ever more vessels for the protection of commerce & replacement of vessels lost while engaged in commerce. Cessation of hostile English naval engagements against American naval warships & vessels of commerce yielded huge dividends at home & throughout the empire... this by virtue of cost savings, material, manpower, & warships required to sustain hostile action against the American navy at sea. Not to mention the increase of commerce between them, by itself.

                    F. ...

                    Let me just cut to the quick, mates... Under the stress & strain of Napoleons threat upon the continent of Europe alone, England had somewhat abandoned many of her own beliefs & ideals in regard to the rights of her own citizenry. Continuance of English hostilities on the North American continent would provide little relief for as long as England remained embroiled in the conflict. With the treaty of Ghent, England was able to accomplish far more for her people than she could ever hope to gain in its absence - as I've simply & coherently illustrated previous. Many began to recognize that - though the United States was a belligerent & unruly child in their eyes - she was still very much a child of England & sibling of all her other children. The United States was much as blood relation... not as England's historic European antagonists. Even the Americans - in the absence of hostilities - felt kinship with their English & northern neighbors to a degree that no other nations could enjoy. Some of the wisest in England recognized properly that the potential for commerce & common cause with America could & would far exceed any bounty England might extract by offensive means & maintenance of untenable lands & properties in a land so removed from their total dominance & means to sustain it... this, against a people that they knew would never yield.

                    As mentioned previously, Both nations reached an agreement by which neither admitted guilt or claimed victory, doing it in such a manner as not to subject or be subjected to blame, claim or judgment of/or by the other.

                    Agreements were made... yes... & agreements were later altered or abated by various means, but Ghent gave England far more in the doing than any degree of victory at New Orleans could have ever provided. Regardless of orders issued before departure from England... the Treaty did change all authority of it. We can engage in 'what if' or 'would or wouldn't' till the cows return to the barn, but we cannot deny that England had more to gain as it turned out, than the United States had to lose as it might have been. In the end of it, England could not have held all that it might have gained, but for only so long. A die had been cast in the American psyche by the 1st War with England which could never be extinguished by the 2nd War with England.

                    Yeah... just me opinion, be it what it may...

                    You have spoken somewhat on what the Treaty of Ghent said. What it did, in fact mandate, was a Treaty of Quid Pro Quo Ante-bellum. In short, the return of all captured territory gained from the war by both sides and a return to the pre-war boundaries. In essence, the British lost most of the State of Maine and the US lost much of Eastern Ontario. It took the Rush Baggot agreement of 1818 to iron out some of the difficulties that were still outstanding from the late war.

                    Knowing the long history of British war making protocalls, you will never convince me that the British would simply surrender a battle-won, foothold on a foreign continent, just because a peace treaty was pending or said-so, given what we already know about British feelings towards an ever expansionist and Manifest Destiny fueled United States. It would take but a simple act of Parliament to abrogate the treaty.

                    The British Empire was largely born through the labours of political and military opportunists, actively pursuing and reacting to each and every opportunity of any given geopolitical situation. I would say that Ambrose's approximation was correct and spot-on.
                    Last edited by johnbryan; 09 Nov 07, 18:44.
                    "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think your overrating Britain's interest in the whole business, maybe if they'd been in possession of New Orleans before the treaty who knows but Britain returned many places to France, Spain the Netherlands etc after wars so I doubt they'd have wanted or kept it when taken after the signing of a treaty.

                      The plan in 1814 was merely to hurry the peace talks along & get the whole business over with whilst all attention was focused on the Congress of Vienna. I can't see any serious intent in anything that was done, you only have to look at the number of troops sent (considering the amount then available) & more importantly who was put in command. Ross & Packenham were only brigade commanders in Wellington's Peninsula army (Packenham commanded a Division on occasion when it's commander was ill), Wellington wasn't interested, his deputy Beresford didn't go nor his Corps commanders Hill, Hope or Graham, it wasn't even a Division commander, Alten, Clinton, Cole, Colville, Hay, Howard, Stewart, none went. Ross was considered a promising General & Packenham had done some duty as a Division commander but they weren't in the first team.

                      It just doesn't look like any importance was being attached to the expedition.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by IanDC View Post
                        I think your overrating Britain's interest in the whole business, maybe if they'd been in possession of New Orleans before the treaty who knows but Britain returned many places to France, Spain the Netherlands etc after wars so I doubt they'd have wanted or kept it when taken after the signing of a treaty.


                        The British also kept alot of places that they deemed stratgically important following a war, Gibraltar for one example. The US was a power that was in its acendancy. Great Britain realized this and rightfully feared its potential to become a power that would one day be far too strong for them to deal with and did all in its power to limit that growth.

                        The plan in 1814 was merely to hurry the peace talks along & get the whole business over with whilst all attention was focused on the Congress of Vienna. I can't see any serious intent in anything that was done, you only have to look at the number of troops sent (considering the amount then available) & more importantly who was put in command. Ross & Packenham were only brigade commanders in Wellington's Peninsula army (Packenham commanded a Division on occasion when it's commander was ill), Wellington wasn't interested, his deputy Beresford didn't go nor his Corps commanders Hill, Hope or Graham, it wasn't even a Division commander, Alten, Clinton, Cole, Colville, Hay, Howard, Stewart, none went. Ross was considered a promising General & Packenham had done some duty as a Division commander but they weren't in the first team.

                        It just doesn't look like any importance was being attached to the expedition.
                        And Ross died in front of Baltimore and Packenham was killed at New Orleans. 10,000-plus British Soldiers, plus that many more Sailors and dozens of warships seems like a large investment of Crown Forces, especially when committed half a world away, during a time when a peace treaty was expected momentarily.

                        Lastly, when the British were repulsed at New Orleans, they didn't simply re-embark aboard ship and return home. Instead they seized the American Fort covering Mobile Bay and prepared another land campaign, with a proposed overland march against New Orleans, along the coast from that location. Fortunately, a few days later, the news arrived from the UK that a treaty had been signed at Ghent.
                        Last edited by johnbryan; 10 Nov 07, 20:07.
                        "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RapierFighter View Post
                          The war was technically over, but so what? The peace treaty had been signed on Christmas Eve, 1814, that much is true. The Battle took place on January 8th, 1815. That much is also true. But the war was technically over, but was it legally over? The US Government did not learn that the treaty was signed until February 17th. When the British were busy dying with their boots on at New Orleans, the treaty hadn't been ratified by either government.
                          Incorrect.
                          The treaty was ratified by the British parliament on the 28th December 1814

                          Another thing to consider: General Edward Parkenham, a veteran of the war against Napoleon (and Wellington's brother-in-law...I didn't learn that until recently...small world, huh?) had orders to set up a civil government in New Orleans. They would then have control of the Mississippi River and could have threated the US all the up the river to St. Louis. Had the British won, they might have decided to stick around. The British Empire, say what you will, was not built by retreating from victories (as historian Stephan Ambrose put it).
                          American historians have been looking for nearly 200 years for any evidence that shows that Britain might have held on to New Orleans if they had captured it.... they haven't found anything so far



                          And in any event, with the peace treaty not yet ratified by either government, legally they probably could have done so.
                          Seeing that the British had already ratified it in Parliament, they couldn't do so, unless the USA had refused to sign it, as this would have been seen as dishonouring Britain's word (not a matter to be taken lightly in that age )


                          Jackson himself, as he left the White House when his terms as president came to an end, was asked about the significance of the battle, since the historians were already writing the now accepted belief that since the war was over, the battle meant nothing.

                          Jackson didn't think so. But since he was well-known as a man who despised the British with a passion, we can't ignore the man's bias. Still, his words are quite telling:

                          "If General Parkenham and his 10,000 matchless veterans could have annihilated my little army, he would have captured New Orleans ans sentried all of the contiguous territory. Though the war was technically over, the British would have immediately abrogated the Treaty of Ghent and would have ignored Jefferson's transaction with Napoleon."

                          Undoubtedly, the British could not have been happy with the Louisiana Purchase. It was their old mortal enemy, France, selling off their American territory to a new enemy, the Americans, to finance Napoleon's wars in Europe. It made an ugly duckling called the United States stronger, and bolstered the ability of the French to make war. The British were receptive to the idea of an American-Anglo alliance against the French, and even though the US tried to be neutral, the Purchase gave certain members of Parliament the idea that the US had in fact chosen sides. Of course, the British ignored that the French Navy was capturing as many American ships as their own Royal Navy, and the deal had little to do with any support for Napoleon, at least in Jefferson's mind.

                          These are a few tidbits that I ran across lately. Make of them what you will. Seriously, what do you think?
                          Just American's looking for ways that they can claim they 'won' the Anglo-American War Of 1812.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                            Incorrect.
                            The treaty was ratified by the British parliament on the 28th December 1814


                            American historians have been looking for nearly 200 years for any evidence that shows that Britain might have held on to New Orleans if they had captured it.... they haven't found anything so far




                            Seeing that the British had already ratified it in Parliament, they couldn't do so, unless the USA had refused to sign it, as this would have been seen as dishonouring Britain's word (not a matter to be taken lightly in that age )



                            Just American's looking for ways that they can claim they 'won' the Anglo-American War Of 1812.
                            That's something of an oversimplification, don't you think?.
                            "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                              That's something of an oversimplification, don't you think?.
                              Not really, Britain had been at war for over twenty years, and it now wanted the enjoy the fruits of its victory over France, holding on to New Orleans would have meant the continuation of the Anglo-American war, which is something the British didn't want.

                              I've often come across the claim that Britain would have held on to New Orleans if they had captured it, but there is a total lack of evidence that the British government ever even considered this act
                              Last edited by redcoat; 10 Nov 07, 20:31.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X