Talk:Battle of New Orleans

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

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)