Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems the author has used some bad reference materials, slated the works of others and not proved his thesis. Sadly, this book is going to form the basis of a Hollywood movie.
It seems the author has used some bad reference materials, slated the works of others and not proved his thesis. Sadly, this book is going to form the basis of a Hollywood movie.
I went through every post of the five pages of the thread you linked and while there were posters claiming "its bad history" and "he used bad sources", nowhere, not once, do any of the complainers actually explain what the problem is supposed to be. Several seemed irked for no other reason than the author apparently trashed a favorite book of theirs about the battle.
By page three they are onto other War of 1812 topics and by page four they have a personality brawl underway, but I was unable to find any sort of explanation as to why the information Drez presents concerning British intentions, is inaccurate.
They charge Drez with "bad history" while practicing a shallow, adjective slinging brand of it themselves.
I have not read the Drez book and am not in a position to state that it is accurate or flawed. I have read the contributions of those on the linked forum and they fail to establish that it is inaccurate, they just say it.
It's an interesting thought GS. For sure Britain was looking to control the Mississippi and commerce along it. Part of that goal was to support the Indian nation they wanted to establish and the other was to block westward expansion. We have two points of reference to look at when pondering what they might have done:
1. The Treaty of Amiens proved that the British had no interest or care for treaties that ran counter to their interest. The expedition sent to New Orleans was not a raiding force, but an army of occupation complete with an entire team of administrators. The intention was to occupy New Orleans and no treaty was going to get in their way.
2. The British and Canadians had made great progress in capturing territory in "Michigan" and "Wisconsin" as well as in "Missouri" near St. Louis. The British effectively held the upper and middle portions of the Mississippi at the end of the war. These advances were not known as Ghent and the territories were simply ceded back. However, the local British and Canadians were very reluctant to give up the territory until the US refused to return Fort Maiden in Amherstburg.
So, if the British had managed to take New Orleans, they would have controlled the entire Mississippi and I don't think they would have given it back. They would have nullified the Louisianna Purchase since they did not view Napoleon's government as legitimate. The territory would have been returned to Spain, but since they were incapable of administering it, the British would just take it off of their hands.
The result would have been a major stunting of westward expansion since all trade needed the Mississippi as the entire country west of the Appalachians pretty much drains into the river. Native Americans would have received their territory along the Mississippi and the Great Lakes region and served as a further buffer to any westward expansion.
The US's only hope would be to continue the war, but their martial performance to that point was dismal and they really lacked the ability to launch a major overland campaign against New Orleans. Overall they would have been forced to accept the new standard and it would have had a profound impact on the nation and its future.
The attack on Washington DC was at all times planned as a raid, get in, do the damage, get out. The assault on New Orleans was designed for conquest and occupation, not a hit and run operation.
Finally, that the Brits always intended to hold New Orleans irrespective of any treaty has recently discovered evidence backing.
The Brits of that era did indeed bring an elastic attitude toward the terms of peace treaties and their maintaining New Orleans even in the face of the Ghent Treaty would not have bene out of character.
A couple of things:
The orders for Ross/Pakenham were written in the summer of 1814, before the British failures of Plattsburgh, Fort Erie and Baltimore.
Liverpool wrote to Wellington and Wellington told him flat-out that the British were entitled to absolutely no territorial gains, Wellington wrote to him "I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any."
Just a few days before the Treaty of Ghent was finalized, Liverpool sent final instructions to his negotiators:
"there is no disposition to exact any terms from the Americans inconsistent with their honor." Liverpool had been the one man blocking a treaty from being signed and with those final instructions, it was a done deal.
What you're suggesting is that Liverpool would have unilaterally abrogated a peace treaty. That's pure speculation. What Liverpool said later is probably more accurate and his final instructions to the peace negotiators, coupled with the extremely influential Wellington's cold rebuttal to his idea of gaining some territory, probably better reflects British thinking than the early summer of 1814 when they were launching three offensives, all of which they thought would be smashing successes.
But since we're speculating, you say it's not out of character for the British to unilaterally abrogate peace treaties. Perhaps. But it would have been out of character for the extremely popular and almost ridiculously family honor-conscious Duke of Wellington. And of course, Pakenham was the Iron Duke's brother-in-law. I highly doubt that Wellington ever would have gone along with something like that, especially if going back on an agreement involved a member of his own family.
The US's only hope would be to continue the war, but their martial performance to that point was dismal and they really lacked the ability to launch a major overland campaign against New Orleans. .
The army with which General Jackson defeated the British was composed of four regular army detachments, and seventeen units of militia, sailors, pirates, free coloreds and Indians. If the US government failed to mount a recovery expedition, this was the age where one can easily imagine some private filibusterer army being raised for the purpose.
I would not under estimate the capacities of an American frontier army raised in the Southern states in this era. These were extraordinarily rugged people who grew up with rifles in their hands. They were incredibly greedy for land and expansion, and would have been highly motivated to fight.
In my alternative history novel, the Brits capture New Orleans, but in turn lose it to a private army organized by Aaron Burr who has returned from his self imposed exile in Europe. He has talked the debt ridden and under appreciated George Rogers Clark into commanding the force.
Now the US is looking to annex New Orleans, but Burr is playing it tough, holding out with impossible demands about being made Governor-For-Life of all the Louisiana Territory. President Madison won't risk sending in an army, but there is one man........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
