Talk:Battle of New Orleans

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!

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)