During our last afternoon in the New Orleans area, we spent an hour or two at the place where Andrew Jackson led the force that repulsed the last British invasion of the War of 1812. Historians agree that Lafitte-supplied artillery provided the "winning edge".

[reh321]

2. Who?

Did you see the comment #9 by @swanlefitte above?
Jean Lefitte was a 'privateer' who lived in nearby swamps. He is given credit for providing some of the men, armaments, and supplies which made the victory possible - then the newly secure country chased him out of the area because he was "bad for trade".

3. Small details in the internal politics of at the time a pretty insignificant nation.

But Andrew Jackson had a significant role in how the U.S. evolved to become what it is today. Today, he and Thomas Jefferson are given credit as parents of the modern Democratic Party {even though today the party is trying to figure out how to reconcile an 'Indian Fighter' and a 'Slave Holder' - both of whom pushed "small government" - with the standards they uphold today. The accounts I've read say that the 'Texians' were greatly encouraged by the arrival of Crockett; Santa Ana is a hero to Mexicans because he stood up to the U.S., but his cruelty at the Alamo (*) is given credit for the events which followed, which shaped the U.S. as a two-ocean nation.


(*) Contemporaneous accounts suggest that Crockett and several others were actually captured by the Mexicans - but Santa Ana had them shot and/or bayoneted.

[normhead]

Nothing said here would change mine or any Canadians mind. It remains an inconsequential , forgettable battle among many the English Empire was fighting at the time. How important it was depends on your perspective. I do however note, that all the American position depends on the untestable theory that things would have been different in the U.S. if things hadn't turned out the way they did. There are other possible speculations that go on to infinity.You can speculate as much as you want about how important the battle was, but it's all just speculation.

In the real world, it didn't change the outcome of the war.

When I moved to Canada I had the joy of defending the American position amongst hostiles many time. But, there's a lot of propaganda value to a battle like that. Even if it was pretty insignificant to everyone else.

[aslyfox]

although the US military forces on land did not do well in the War of 1812, the US Naval forces, both inland and on the seas fared better

some links for those interested

Naval Activity During The War Of 1812 - US Military

Naval Battleships | War of 1812 | PBS

Essays | War of 1812 | PBS

The War of 1812 & the U.S. Navy ? The Military Historian

USS Ticonderoga in the Naval Battle of Plattsburgh

[aslyfox]

. . . But Andrew Jackson had a significant role in how the U.S. evolved to become what it is today. Today, he and Thomas Jefferson are given credit as parents of the modern Democratic Party {even though today the party is trying to figure out how to reconcile an 'Indian Fighter' and a 'Slave Holder' - both of whom pushed "small government" - with the standards they uphold today. . . .

(*) Contemporaneous accounts suggest that Crockett and several others were actually captured by the Mexicans - but Santa Ana had them shot and/or bayoneted.

Jackson, as President, was a pivotal change - -

[ I am fearful about explaining fully as I don't want to be accused of being in violation of the forums' rules, if curious as to my views, please pm me ]

there is some " evidence " that Crockett survived the battle but died later either killed intentionally or by disease

[normhead]

I'm just saying there is a Canadian position here and a British position, that is different from the U.S. As one who was actually taught both positions in the two respective countries, both positions have merit. And the inability fo Americans to understand the Canadian position is what's most annoying. But hey, that's war. The truth is the first casualrty.

The Americans rebelled agains the Brits to gsin their independence. The defining spot for Canada was defending the country from the Americans. That was pretty much Canada's "war of independence". A century later, different villains. The rebels became the establishment and the aggressors.

[reh321]

I'm just saying there is a Canadian position here and a British position, that is different from the U.S. As one who was actually taught both positions in the two respective countries, both positions have merit. And the inability fo Americans to understand the Canadian position is what's most annoying. But hey, that's war. The truth is the first casualrty.

The Americans rebelled agains the Brits to gsin their independence. The defining spot for Canada was defending the country from the Americans. That was pretty much Canada's "war of independence".

Yes, there is an 'American' (*) position and a Canadian position - we have lived different histories

(*) I'm not sure how residents of the U.S. appropriated the term "American" that should belong to all residents from Nome to Tierra Del Fuego ... but we don't have another short word to identify us.

[swanlefitte]

It is hard to understand the Canadian perspective from US soil. For one the war was directed from London. Canada wasn't a country for more than half a century later.
I am sure the results did effect all 3 nations as well as the rest of the world. The significance is limited in evidence to what followed and completely lacking as to what didn't. It is speculation. Yet some speculation has more merit than others.
Lefitte moved to Galveston and became Lafitte. It has significance to me.

[aslyfox]

Yes, there is an 'American' (*) position and a Canadian position - we have lived different histories . . .

those who write the " history " always have a " bias "

the good historians realize that and take note of it and work on it

this is why, along with many other things about our life, it is best to consult multiple sources, including those with contrasting view points

[reh321]

Lefitte moved to Galveston and became Lafitte. It has significance to me.

I have to admit that your name here has always been something of a mystery to me {almost as strange as your avatar}
Today is the first time I parsed your name into swan-lefitte.

[swanlefitte]

Ahrrrh! Jean lefitte/ swanlefitte.

[swanlefitte]

, forgettable battle among many the English Empire

The UK? English empire can be argued but that is beyond the scope of this forum for sure since the politics involves more than history.

[swanlefitte]

Losing a war to a puny little country with 220 regulars, 300 reserves and 800 natives for an army.
.

I have seen numbers up to 8000 for the UK to as low as 2000. That doesn't mesh with your numbers. All sources agree it was close to 2 to 1. The Scotts discipline lost the battle. They refused to move without orders and their leader was dead. They were mowed down standing still.

[Rondec]

I'm just saying there is a Canadian position here and a British position, that is different from the U.S. As one who was actually taught both positions in the two respective countries, both positions have merit. And the inability fo Americans to understand the Canadian position is what's most annoying. But hey, that's war. The truth is the first casualrty.

The Americans rebelled agains the Brits to gsin their independence. The defining spot for Canada was defending the country from the Americans. That was pretty much Canada's "war of independence". A century later, different villains. The rebels became the establishment and the aggressors.

Honestly, other than historians, I don't believe either British or American folks think about the war of 1812 very much, much less the battle of New Orleans.

As to its timing, in the days before telephone service, it was before anyone knew a peace treaty had been reached, whether or not it had been signed and I doubt the treaty would have changed a whole lot due to the slow communication -- by the time news of the Battle of New Orleans reached Europe, certainly the treaty was long in the books.

The biggest thing about the battle was that it did launch Andrew Jackson's fame and fortunes which ended with him in the White House. I have a distinctly negative impression of his presidency, particularly from his handling of the Cherokee nation, but if he had lost that battle, he would have been merely a footnote in the history books.

[normhead]

Honestly, other than historians, I don't believe either British or American folks think about the war of 1812 very much, much less the battle of New Orleans.

As to its timing, in the days before telephone service, it was before anyone knew a peace treaty had been reached, whether or not it had been signed and I doubt the treaty would have changed a whole lot due to the slow communication -- by the time news of the Battle of New Orleans reached Europe, certainly the treaty was long in the books.

The biggest thing about the battle was that it did launch Andrew Jackson's fame and fortunes which ended with him in the White House. I have a distinctly negative impression of his presidency, particularly from his handling of the Cherokee nation, but if he had lost that battle, he would have been merely a footnote in the history books.

Andrew Jackson was a friend of the Cherokees. The Cherokee standing army which had been a force of 20,000 men was reduced tp 2000 men.by small pox. There was a Georgia Militia that was planning to invade their territory. Many Cherokee were quite wealthy. Some owned as many a 60 slaves. The Georgians wanted both their land and their wealth. Jackson knew he couldn't count on the U.S. Army to defend the Cherokee against the Georgia militia. The army was 200 years from being in a position to defend non-whited against whites. The 'Trail of Tears" was Jackson's attempt top save his friends. As recounted by Cherokee elders.

You might want to give Mr. Jackson a break on that one. It was the entrepreneurs who sold the military the blankets provided the Cherokees for the trip who infected the blankets with small pox. Not the military. A little bit of capitalist germ warfare. You can never underestimate the innovative spirit of the U.S. capitalists.

[reh321]

Andrew Jackson was a friend of the Cherokees. The Cherokee standing army which had been a force of 20,000 men was reduced tp 2000 men.by small pox. There was a Georgia Militia that was planning to invade their territory. Many Cherokee were quite wealthy. Some owned as many a 60 slaves. The Georgians wanted both their land and their wealth. Jackson knew he couldn't count on the U.S. Army to defend the Cherokee against the Georgia militia. The army was 200 years from being in a position to defend non-whited against whites. The 'Trail of Tears" was Jackson's attempt top save his friends. As recounted by Cherokee elders.

You might want to give Mr. Jackson a break on that one. It was the entrepreneurs who sold the military the blankets provided the Cherokees for the trip who infected the blankets with small pox. Not the military. A little bit of capitalist germ warfare. You can never underestimate the innovative spirit of the U.S. capitalists.

I guess this is another place where Americans and Canadians will have to disagree about history. What we are told these days is that Jackson's treatment of 'Indians' in general was so awful that former-frontiersman-turned-Congressman Crockett publicly chastised him - so he chased Crockett out of their mutual home state. I'm not quite old enough to remember that, though.