diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52355-0.txt | 2547 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52355-0.zip | bin | 46514 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52355-h.zip | bin | 136503 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52355-h/52355-h.htm | 2356 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52355-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 85940 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52355.txt | 2548 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52355.zip | bin | 46303 -> 0 bytes |
10 files changed, 17 insertions, 7451 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..354f6e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #52355 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52355) diff --git a/old/52355-0.txt b/old/52355-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 30f0d3b..0000000 --- a/old/52355-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2547 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Battle of New Orleans, by Reau Estes Folk - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Battle of New Orleans - Its Real Meaning - -Author: Reau Estes Folk - -Release Date: June 17, 2016 [EBook #52355] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS *** - - - - -Produced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - - - - - - - - - - BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS - ITS REAL MEANING - - - Exposure of Untruth Being Taught Young America - -_Concerning the Second Most Important Military Event in the Life of the - Republic._ - - - _By_ Reau E. Folk, - _Chairman Tennessee Commission of Research as to the True Value of the - Victory at New Orleans._ - - - - - DEDICATION - - - _This Volume Is Dedicated To:_ - - _The State of Tennessee, which authorized the Investigation;_ - - _The Ladies’ Hermitage Association, charged with primary duty of - preserving the home of Andrew Jackson, whose military genius, courage, - and patriotism saved the nation in the second War of Independence;_ - -_The Descendants of the Soldiers who fought at New Orleans, whose memory - should always be cherished; and_ - -_The noble band of School Teachers everywhere, whose high impulse is to - impart the truth._ - - _REAU E. FOLK._ - -_Nashville, Tenn._ - - - Copyright, 1935, Reau E. Folk - - Published by Ladies’ Hermitage Association, Nashville, Tenn. - Limited Edition - Cullom & Ghertner, Publishers, Nashville, Tenn. - - - - - COMMISSION REPORT - - -Below is given report to the Governor of Tennessee by the author of this -volume as chairman of the authorized Tennessee Committee of Research. -Attached are letters of concurrence from two of his associate members. -The remaining member is out of the country. Documents have been sent to -him, but at the time of this printing sufficient time has not elapsed to -hear from him. In a later edition his comments will be given. - - - NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE - To His Excellency, The Honorable Hill McAllister, - Governor of Tennessee. - -Sir: - -The General Assembly of Tennessee of 1927 adopted the following joint -resolution: - -WHEREAS, the Battle of New Orleans, fought on January 8, 1815, is one of -the outstanding military events of American History; and, - -WHEREAS, the memory of the great American victory achieved there, is -especially cherished by Tennesseans because of Andrew Jackson, and the -other Tennesseans who therein immortalized themselves; and, - -WHEREAS, school histories, adopted for and taught in our schools, convey -the impression that the battle was a needless one in that it occurred -fifteen days after the Treaty of Peace had been signed at Ghent, -Belgium, by the Commissioners representing the United States and -England; and, - -WHEREAS, serious criticism is made that such textbooks present an -erroneous appraisement of the value of the battle, by omitting the -reference to an essential fact, to-wit: that England did not construe -the Peace Treaty of Ghent as applicable to Louisiana, for the reason -that she held as invalid the title of the United States to that Domain, -conveyed by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803; and, - -WHEREAS, it is of prime importance that our school children should -receive every essential truth from historical textbooks, and especially -those textbooks placed in the hands of Tennessee students should portray -in its true significance the Battle of New Orleans in which the -ancestors of so many were engaged; now, - -THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives -concurring, that the Governor be, and is hereby empowered and -authorized, to appoint five, or in discretion seven, persons of known -historical knowledge and research, who shall constitute a Commission, -charged with the duty of carefully examining the authorities, touching -the true value of the Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, 1815; -and, - -Said Commission shall incorporate its conclusions and recommendations in -a report to the Governor who shall transmit the same to the Legislature. - -Under the above resolution the following were appointed: Reau E. Folk, -Chairman; John Trotwood Moore; John H. DeWitt; Claude G. Bowers; John S. -Kendall. - -The chairman, by reason of partial business retirement, has been able to -devote himself assiduously to the research work involved. The result of -his research, compiled into a small volume, accompanies this report. - -At the outset the writer wishes to say he has had no opportunity for -conference with the full Commission, but has had the benefit of -consultation with Messrs. Moore and DeWitt, both of whom were very -co-operative. The first named, the late John Trotwood Moore, State -Historian, condensed his conclusion into a sentence, which is here given -because he is no longer with us to speak for himself. He said: “The -Battle of New Orleans saved the Louisiana Purchase, or another war with -England.” Judge John H. DeWitt, President of the Tennessee Historical -Society, has given much valuable and sympathetic aid. - -The small volume herewith submitted gives exact quotations concerning -the Battle of New Orleans from all histories under adoption as textbooks -for the public schools of Tennessee. All of these present the same -viewpoint, to-wit: that the battle was an unnecessary one; that it was -fought after peace had been made. These researches show conclusively -that all these books are in error. The battle was NOT fought after -peace. - -These researches have uncovered a startling, astounding fact—startling -and astounding because that fact has been consistently ignored or -overlooked by historians. That fact appears in the wording of the Ghent -Treaty itself, which says in plain language that peace shall be -effective when the treaty shall have been ratified by both sides! It was -ratified by the United States February 17, 1815, forty days after the -Battle of New Orleans! - -Hence it must be patent to all that the statement, that the battle -occurred after peace made so persistently by historians, is an obvious -untruth, based on false assumption of fact. The wording of the treaty, -appearing in the volume herewith, has been verified from the treaty -itself on file in the State Department at Washington. - -If the issue of the battle had been different, it is a matter for fair -speculation as to whether or not the treaty would have been ratified by -the United States. The Administration would have been torn between the -ominous threats of the northeastern states on the one hand, and on the -other by British occupancy of the vast territory west of the Mississippi -River, with civil government set up. Happily this grave situation was -averted by the great victory, news of which reached Washington ten days -before the treaty. - -In the volume herewith there is presented well authenticated evidence -leading to the irresistable deduction that it was England’s purpose -after capturing to retain the great Louisiana Domain, on the ground of -the invalidity of the U. S. title acquired from Napoleon in 1803. Among -other indications of England’s attitude there are exhibited copies of -records during the negotiations at Ghent taken from the archives of the -State Department at Washington. - -The chairman, as the compiler of the volume referred to, hopes it will -be carefully read by all interested in truth of history, not only in -Tennessee, but in the nation. - -The writer, in obedience to the Legislative resolution under which he -was appointed, herewith asks leave to report as his findings as to the -true value of the Battle of New Orleans the following: - -1st: It did not occur after peace as erroneously is stated by school and -other histories; it occurred during a state of war between the United -States and England; - -2nd: It was a necessary battle, made so by the aggressions of England; -in addition to its national necessity, it was as necessary as would be -the defense by a citizen of his home and family from marauders; - -3rd: It was a major military event in the life of the Republic, second -only to Yorktown; - -4th: It saved the Louisiana Purchase, or prolongation of existing war, -or another war with England; or acquiescense in the Mississippi River as -our western boundary; - -5th: It established wholesome respect of U. S. sovereignty by Great -Britain, marking the last armed conflict between these two powers, -between which a solid peace has existed ever since; - -6th: It created profound impression throughout the world, with -consequent greater respect and security of the Republic among her sister -nations; - -7th: It restored national self respect, then at its lowest ebb. - -In submitting the result of this research the writer earnestly -recommends to the Governor and the General Assembly that proper and -decisive steps be taken to the end that our school children may be -taught the truth as to the value of the great victory in which -Tennesseans of another age played a leading part, and which contributed -so much to the destinies of the nation. - - Respectfully, - Reau E. Folk, _Chairman_, - _Authorized Commission of Research as to Value of Battle of New - Orleans._ - - - December 12, 1934. - -My Dear Mr. Folk: - -I have carefully read and considered the report which you, as Chairman -of the Commission appointed in 1927 to examine the authorities as to the -true value of the Battle of New Orleans, are about to make to the -Governor of Tennessee. Hitherto I have had the privilege of conferring -with you from time to time concerning the important historical question -involved in the investigation. - -I have also read carefully the treatise prepared by you and which -accompanies your report to the Governor. It shows very thorough and -judicious investigation, and in my opinion very sound conclusions. - -I fully concur with you in the conclusions stated in your report, as -well as the reasons therefor which you have therein set forth in lucid -statement. - -I do trust that this valuable work which you have done will be properly -appreciated, and that the errors which have so persistently appeared in -the histories, particularly the school histories, will be duly -corrected, so that the fallacy that the Battle of New Orleans was a -useless battle and fought after the treaty of peace, will no longer be -accepted by anybody, and that truth will be known by all. - - Yours very truly, - John H. DeWitt. - -D-R - - - Tulane University, - New Orleans, La., - December 22, 1934. - -My Dear Mr. Folk: - -I have read with attention your excellent report on the Battle of New -Orleans, to be submitted to the Governor of Tennessee, in conjunction -with the report of our commission on the subject. I have ventured to -indicate by question marks in two or three places phrases or statements -which I think could be changed to advantage. These, however, are merely -questions of verbiage, not of fact. In point of fact, I think you have -made a most interesting and important assemblage of the essential points -to be considered in connection with the Battle of New Orleans, and have -shown conclusively that the opinion so frequently expressed by -historians, that the battle was unnecessary, is a sentimental inaccuracy -which ought to be corrected. You have done a useful and important piece -of work, and I congratulate you upon its completion. - -May I beg you to be good enough to favor me with a copy when the work is -printed? I should like to prepare a review of it for one of our local -newspapers. - - Yours very truly, - John S. Kendall. - - - - - _Details of Research_ - - - Crusade Sword. - - Voltaire, French Cynic, Is Quoted as Saying That History Is Made Up of - Lies Agreed Upon. Here Is One Almost Agreed Upon, Now Overhauled and - Exposed. - - - Louisiana Domain. - -The Louisiana spoken of in this volume refers to the great Louisiana -Domain purchased by President Jefferson from France in 1803. That -original Domain now comprehends all or most of sixteen states, as -follows: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, -Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South -Dakota, Washington and Wyoming. - - - - - CHAPTER I. - An Interview Containing an Outline. - - -It was the 8th of January. I sat down for lunch at a small table in a -Nashville hotel. Presently the head waiter conducted to a seat opposite -me a young man, seemingly about 22 years of age. He was a handsome, -wholesome looking young man, and had an air of self-reliance. He -impressed me at first sight as being a typical young American; at any -rate he was decidedly attractive to the narrator, whose grey head could -but reveal his advanced years. - -While awaiting the lunches, a casual remark about the weather opened -conversation. A waiter brought an afternoon paper. On the front page was -a picture of Andrew Jackson, and big headlines over accounts of -celebrations in memory of the victory at New Orleans in 1815. - -The young man, with the superiority of youthful knowledge, exclaimed: - -“Why all this to-do about a battle which was a needless one? It was a -brilliant victory, and salved American pride at the time; but that is -now four generations in the past. We should not go on salving our pride -over a useless victory, and especially when it was over a country now -our strong and perpetual friend. We don’t need anything to boost our -pride any more. We are now the greatest nation on earth.” - -While responding to the fervor in the young man’s last sentence, I felt -a kind of joy in his prelude, which I knew was based on history that I -knew to be false. - -In brief explanation, let me say that for some years, I have been -engaged in research work as to the true value of the battle of New -Orleans, resulting in the conviction that the current appraisal in -school histories is entirely erroneous. I therefore welcomed the -opportunity to develop the truth to this typical young American. I -decided upon the gradual approach rather than a frontal attack, which -might result in amour propre resentment. - -I said in a casual tone: - -“Permit me to take issue with you. Suppose I should tell you that the -Battle of New Orleans was not a needless battle; that it was, in fact, -the second most important military event in the life of our republic? -Suppose I should say to you that it was not fought after peace, but -during war?” - -The young man looked at me, first with a show of impatience, and then -with a tolerant air. - -“My only answer,” he returned, “is that you haven’t read our modern -histories. I have. The Peace Treaty of Ghent was signed Christmas Eve, -1814. Sailing vessels were the quickest means of communication at that -time, and so it was more than six weeks before the news reached our -people. During that interim the Battle of New Orleans was fought. So you -see it was quite useless except as a contribution to American pride.” - -“Have you read that treaty?” I asked. - -“Sure,” he responded, “that is, I have read several reliable digests. -They all say the treaty was silent as to Impressment and Orders in -Council, which caused our declaration of war, and that it amounted to a -simple agreement to stop fighting and go back to the status before the -war.” - -As I was calculating on my next move the young man resumed: - -“We had a debate at school last year on the question, ‘Resolved, that -the United States won the War of 1812.’ I took the ground that it was a -draw, and my side won. So you can see that I am well posted on that -war.” - -He had a polite, patronizing air, and this decided me upon a direct -blow. - -“I thank you,” said I; “I have also closely studied the events of this -War of 1812. I have read some more or less superficial comments on the -Peace Treaty of Ghent. I have also read the Treaty itself, word by word. -In precise specific terms, that document stipulated that it was not to -be effective until ratified by both sides.” - -The young man gave an inquiring look, and commented: - -“That of course is important, if true.” - -“It is true,” I replied. “You can verify the fact in fifteen minutes. A -few blocks from where we sit is a Carnegie Library in which you can find -a volume containing various treaties of the United States. The Treaty of -Ghent is among them. It is called the Treaty of Amity.” - -“May I ask who you are?” questioned the young man, with a changed and -puzzled mien. - -“I am a member of the Committee appointed by the State to make research -into the real value of the Battle of New Orleans.” - -“I am delighted to know you,” said the young man. “I love to discuss -history, which reveals the foundation of our existing social structure. -There are some questions I would like to ask of you. First, since the -Treaty was eventually ratified, aren’t our historians while technically -wrong, in saying the Battle of New Orleans occurred after Peace, and was -a useless battle, really in the right, for the reason that the battle -really had no effect upon the Peace Treaty?” - -“It is true,” I replied, “the Treaty adopted at Ghent, Dec. 24, 1814, -was ratified soon after its reception in Washington, and promulgated the -next day, Feb. 18, 1815. That was after the news of the victory at New -Orleans had reached Washington. - -“But suppose the result at New Orleans had been different, would -President Madison have signed the Treaty? - -“That is a real question for college debate. It is a question calculated -to bring sharply to the student the picture of the distracted condition -of our country at the time. By signing the treaty Madison would have -appeased the New England section, then in hostile and threatening -attitude, but at the same time would have faced the surrender of the -territory west of the Mississippi for all time, or faced future -negotiation or war. By refusing to sign, the President would have -prolonged the war with its uncertainties. At the same time he would have -confronted possible disunion through the open disaffection of the -northeastern states. The English government construed the disaffection -as a threat of secession. - -“It was planned by that calculating government, as evidence shows, to -inveigle New England into a separate treaty in case after British -capture and occupation of New Orleans, Madison should refuse to ratify -the Ghent treaty. Thus, if the issue in that New Orleans affair had been -different, President Madison would have faced danger of disunion, on one -side or the other. - -“It would be hard to conceive of a graver situation. All this was -averted, and gloriously averted, by the victory at New Orleans, the news -of which caused the treaty to be joyfully ratified.” - -“Haven’t you overdrawn the picture?” asked the young man. “Isn’t it a -fact that the treaty provided for the return of all territory taken -during the war, so that, if the English had captured New Orleans they -would have given it up?” - -“My dear young friend,” I replied, “I have not overdrawn the picture. -The mutual restoration clause provided that all territory, places and -possessions, taken by either, were to be returned at effective peace. -Bear in mind that England had never conceded the validity of our title -to the Louisiana Domain, and so if the carefully planned design to -capture it had been successful, England was in position to hold that she -did not regard it as a legal possession of the United States, and as not -subject to return under the Peace Treaty. It is a violence to -credibility to suppose that England, after finally dispatching the big -expedition against Louisiana, would within a few weeks thereafter, agree -to a peace treaty, recalling her troops from an anticipated successful -conquest. In the light of present knowledge, the peace proceedings show -a studied purpose to protect the expedition sent out to capture New -Orleans. The supposition, advanced by many historians, that if England -had captured New Orleans, she would have given it up, is a reflection -upon the intelligence of the English government of that period, and -really, ascribes to that government egregious asininity. Now, with all -of her blunders, England has never been asinine.” - -The young man listened intently, gave an inhaled “Oh,” and then added: - -“I begin to see; but there are some questions I want to ask. First, when -and why and how did this error get in history?” - -“A natural inquiry,” I responded. “I cannot definitely answer, nor is a -definite answer vital. However, I will give one conjecture; Jackson -became a national figure as a result of the Battle of New Orleans. While -acclaimed by the masses, Jackson had many bitter enemies, some of them -in the history writing class. Prejudice may have caused disparagement of -the importance of the event upon which his national fame is founded. But -all that is of small importance beside the establishment of the actual -truth, that the battle was not fought after peace, but that it was -necessary to prevent England’s conquest of Louisiana. Thus, as I have -said before, the Battle was the second most important military event in -the life of the Republic.” - -“Now my other questions,” said the young man; “why has such an error -been allowed to go unchallenged all these generations?” - -“Another natural question,” I answered. “It is a question that must come -to every mind in approaching this matter of clarification. I am not able -to answer this question definitely, just as I was not able to answer -your other question with any degree of certainty. The answer is not -vital, except from the standpoint of the problem involved, of overcoming -the inertia of a long-enthroned lie. My conjecture is that the false -appraisal began when civil upheaval was imminent, and when most people -were thinking only of the present—a state of mind which was continued -for a long time. So the viewpoint of prejudice, unopposed, gradually -crept into accepted history. There have been, and are, students of -history adhering to the great fact that the Battle of New Orleans saved -the Louisiana purchase, or another war with England. But school -histories continue to purvey the false viewpoint to the youth of the -land. But ‘truth is mighty and will prevail,’ and the time has now -come.” - -At this point a bell boy brought me a card, and I arose to bid goodbye -to my young friend, saying; - -“They have come for me, to go to the Hermitage for the exercises being -held there today.” - -The young man said: - -“I wish it were so you could take me.” - -I arranged to do so, very much pleased at this change in his attitude. - - - - - CHAPTER II. - Containing a High Commission and an Indictment. - - -There is no nobler calling than that of the school teachers of America, -who are ministering to the instruction and development of the future -citizens and leaders of the Republic. These teachers are bound to be -deeply concerned when they find that through school histories furnished -them, they have been imparting a falsehood about an important event in -United States history—the Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, 1815. -These school histories minimize the value of the battle, describing it -as needless, because fought after peace, when as a fact, the battle was -not fought after peace, and the victory, in fact, prevented a carefully -planned conquest of the then lately acquired Louisiana Domain, with all -the attendant, untoward complications, another war being one of them. - -It is the purpose of this volume to show by reliable authorities, the -truth as to the value of this battle. - -History, as is well known, is honey-combed with lies, originally -projected either in ignorance, prejudice or adulation. We are always -fortunate if able to arrest and correct one before too late. - -The Legislature of Tennessee, at its session of 1927, adopted the -following resolution: - -“WHEREAS, the Battle of New Orleans, fought on January 8, 1815, is one -of the outstanding military events of American History; and, - -“WHEREAS, the memory of the great American victory achieved there, is -especially cherished by Tennesseans because of Andrew Jackson, and the -other Tennesseans who therein immortalized themselves; and, - -“WHEREAS, school histories, adopted for and taught in our schools, -convey the impression that the battle was a needless one in that it -occurred fifteen days after the treaty of Peace had been signed at -Ghent, Belgium, by the Commissioners representing the United States and -England; and, - -“WHEREAS, serious criticism is made that such textbooks present an -erroneous appraisement of the value of the battle, by omitting the -reference to an essential fact, to-wit: that England did not construe -the Peace Treaty of Ghent as applicable to Louisiana, for the reason -that she held as invalid the title of the United States to that Domain, -conveyed by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803; and, - -“WHEREAS, it is of prime importance that our school children should -receive every essential truth from historical textbooks, and especially -those textbooks placed in the hands of Tennessee students should portray -in its true significance the battle of New Orleans in which the -ancestors of so many were engaged; Now, - -“THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives -concurring, that the Governor be, and is hereby empowered and -authorized, to appoint five, or in his discretion seven, persons of -known historical knowledge and research, who shall constitute a -Commission, charged with the duty of carefully examining the -authorities, touching the true value of the Battle of New Orleans, -fought January 8, 1815; and, - -“Said Commission shall incorporate its conclusions and recommendations -in a report to the Governor who shall transmit the same to the -Legislature.” - -The present writer, who was appointed a member of the authorized -Committee, has been engaged in making research into the matter involved, -and has found facts, not hard of access, which should, and will, when -understood, force a radical revision of school histories in the version -they present as to the value of the New Orleans victory. - -Other members of the Commission appointed by the Governor were: John H. -DeWitt, of Nashville, Judge of the Tennessee Court of Appeals and -president of the Tennessee Historical Society; John Trotwood Moore, of -Nashville, State Librarian and historian; Claude G. Bowers, New York, -author, historian, and editor—now ambassador to Spain; John S. Kendall, -of New Orleans, historian and professor in Tulane University. - -It is the purpose of the writer, after submission for comment to his -distinguished fellow Committeemen, to make this volume the basis of -report to the Governor of Tennessee for transmission to the Legislature. - -In order to present, in as simple a way as possible, the case, or the -indictment, for such it is, actual and authenticated excerpts are given -herewith from all the American histories prescribed for Tennessee Public -Schools by the State Text Book Commission. - -These extracts were obtained from the office of the Secretary of State, -where under statute, copies of all adopted text books are kept. - - - - - CHAPTER III. - What School Histories Teach. - - -Here are the extracts from the Tennessee authorized school Histories: - -School History of Tennessee: S. E. Scates, page 225: - -“Though the battle resulted in great victory for the Americans, it was -sad indeed that so many brave men lost their lives at New Orleans quite -uselessly. At Ghent, Belgium, a treaty of peace for the war of 1812 had -been signed Christmas Eve, 1814. Because messages travelled so slowly, -by sailing vessels, news of peace did not reach New Orleans until after -the fighting had taken place.” - - -A History of American Government and Culture: Harold Rugg, page 192: - -“Two weeks after the Treaty of Peace had been signed, another battle was -fought. This may seem strange to you, but in those days transportation -and communication was so slow that news of the making of peace reached -the country long after it had happened.” - - -History of the United States: Beard & Beard, page 238: - -“The Treaty of Peace. Both countries were in truth sick of a war that -offered neither glory nor profit. So after an exchange of notes they -sent representatives to Ghent to discuss a settlement. Long negotiations -were finally ended by an agreement on Christmas Eve, 1814, a few days -before Jackson’s victory at New Orleans. When the treaty reached America -the people were surprised to find it said nothing about the seizure of -American sailors, the destruction of American trade, the searching for -American ships, or the support of Indians on the frontier. Nevertheless, -we are told, the public ‘passed from gloom to glory’ on the arrival of -the news of peace. Bells were rung; schools were closed; flags were -displayed; and many a rousing toast was drunk in taverns and private -homes. The rejoicing could continue. With Napoleon definitely beaten at -Waterloo in June, 1815, Great Britain had no more need to impress -sailors, search ships, and seize American goods bound to the Continent. -Once more the terrible sea power sank into the background and the ocean -was again white with the sails of merchantmen.” - - -History of the American People: Latane, page 284: - -“Jackson’s brilliant victory at the Battle of New Orleans caused great -rejoicing throughout the country, but it did not affect the outcome of -the war, for the treaty of peace had been signed at Ghent two weeks -before it was fought. Its effect on the course of American history, -however, was far-reaching, for it brought the West into greater -prominence and made Andrew Jackson the military hero and political -leader of that section.” - - -A History of the People of the United States: Waddy Thompson, page 220: - -“Treaty of Peace; Results of the War: The great victory of New Orleans -was won after peace had been made. A treaty had been signed at Ghent, -Belgium, on December 24, 1814. But as only sailing vessels then crossed -the ocean, and as about six weeks were required for the voyage, news of -peace did not reach America until February, 1815.” - - -First Book in United States History: Waddy Thompson, page 253: - -“A Victory after Peace: Brilliant as was the victory at New Orleans, it -was won after peace had been made between the United States and Great -Britain. Both sides having become tired of the War, a treaty of peace -was signed in Belgium in December, 1814; while the Battle of New Orleans -was fought on January 8, 1815. Steamboats did not then cross the Ocean, -and no electric cable connected America with Europe, so news of the -treaty did not reach America until a month after the Battle of New -Orleans.” - - -The American People: Muzzey, page 218: - -“Jackson, henceforth, the ‘Hero of New Orleans’ was rewarded in the -following years by the command against the Indians of Florida (1817), -the governorship of Florida territory (1821); a seat in the United -States Senate (1823), and the Presidency of the United States (1829). If -the Atlantic cable had existed in 1814, it would have brought the news -of the treaty of peace in time to turn Pakenham’s expedition back from -the Mississippi, to prevent the bloodiest battle that had ever been -fought on American soil, and perhaps to keep from the pages of American -history the administration of the most masterful of our Presidents -between Washington and Lincoln.” - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - Falsehood Shown by the Records. - - -The unanimity of view presented by these extracts from Tennessee adopted -histories, gives justification for the assumption that the same view -obtains throughout the United States. In partial extenuation of school -historians and of Textbook Commissions, it may be said that they have -followed the lead of most generally recognized historians. But any -trusting follower of the pack leaders could have ascertained, without -much trouble, that the battle of New Orleans was NOT fought after peace. -It occurred fifteen days after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed by -the Commissioners of the two interested nations, but expressly, by the -terms of that treaty, it was not to be effective until ratified by both -sides and ratification exchanged in Washington. - -Let us go to specific quotations. The Peace Treaty of Ghent, dated -December 24, 1814, contained, as its first sentence, the following -words: “All hostilities, both by sea and by land shall cease as soon as -this treaty shall be ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned.” - -Article XI of the Treaty reads: “This Treaty, when the same shall be -ratified on both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting -parties, and the ratification mutually exchanged, shall be binding on -both parties; and the ratification shall be exchanged at Washington, in -the space of four months from this date, or sooner if practicable.” - -Further, the record shows that ratification of the Treaty was advised by -the United States Senate, February 16, 1815; that it was ratified -February 17; and ratification exchanged the same day, and that it was -promulgated February 18th. - -The Treaty of Ghent, called the Treaty of Amity, is preserved, of -course, among American State papers. A copy may be found in a public -library in a volume devoted to Treaties, Agreements, Etc. between the U. -S. A. and other Powers, Compiled by W. M. Maloy, Under Resolution of U. -S. Senate of Jan. 18, 1909. - -A lawyer friend of the writer, with whom he discussed the situation, -suggested that while manifestly in error in representing the Battle as -having been fought after peace, that a plea in abatement might be -offered for the historians to the effect that the treaty was -subsequently ratified as written; that the Battle of New Orleans had no -effect upon the Treaty; that it further was needless because if its -issue had been different the British under the mutual restoration clause -of the Ghent Treaty would, upon promulgation of the Treaty, have -evacuated New Orleans and Louisiana. - -That viewpoint is entitled to such consideration as should be given any -viewpoint based solely on assumption, but it and all such viewpoints -must be subjected to acid judgment based on co-related facts. - -As to the first point above made, it is a matter of record that the -treaty was ratified quickly after reaching Washington; it is also a -matter of record that the news of the great American victory at New -Orleans reached the Capitol ten days before. As to the second point, -that the battle had no effect upon the treaty, a wide range of -discussion, based on records, is opened, which will be presented later. - -As to the third point, that the battle was needless because, if -successful, the British would have evacuated New Orleans and Louisiana -upon promulgation of the Peace Treaty, it may be stated here that the -records which will be presently laid before the reader give decided -negation to that assumption. - -The writer boldly avers, as supported truth, that the British -Government, never having acknowledged the validity of the title of the -United States to Louisiana, secretly dispatched the big expedition -against New Orleans with one hand, while directing peace negotiations -with the other; that it was the British purpose to seize and hold -Louisiana, nominally in the name of Spain; and that the British -Government would never have agreed to a peace treaty, which did not -contain a clause, no matter how subtly garbed, that would not give -justification to the British retention of Louisiana. - -However, before going into the matter of citations of authorities and -records, it is due to the reader to present something of the English -attitude at the time, so that he may see more clearly and with more -understanding its actions. That can best be done by brief picture of the -background of that period. - - - - - CHAPTER V. - Background—Louisiana. - - -The great domain, christened Louisiana, was taken over by La Salle in -1682, in the name of France. It remained under French dominion until -1763, when, as a result of French-English wars, France retired from the -New World. It seemed inevitable that Louisiana, great unexplored -trans-river territory, would fall into English hands. But France ceded -Louisiana to Spain, then still a world power. In 1800 Napoleon Bonaparte -caused Spain to re-cede Louisiana to France. In 1803 Bonaparte sold -Louisiana to the United States. He was about to engage in war with -England, and historians generally agree that the sale to United States -was made because he recognized the difficulty of defending the remote -territory against the English Navy. The British Encyclopedia says the -sale was made to keep Louisiana from falling into English hands. Thus it -appears, that England was justified in feeling that Louisiana for the -second time had been maneuvered from her ownership. - -References without number may be given from histories covering that -period. The writer has before him James G. Blaine’s “Twenty Years in -Congress,” which in Chapter 1 of the first volume (pages 3 to 13) deals -comprehensively with the relation of the Louisiana purchase to the early -days of the Republic. Some key quotations are here presented: “She -(France) in 1763, now gave up Canada and Cape Breton, acknowledged the -sovereignty of Great Britain in the original thirteen colonies as -extending to the Mississippi, and, by a separate treaty, surrendered -Louisiana on the west side of the Mississippi, with New Orleans on the -east side, to Spain. She (Spain) continued in possession of Louisiana -until the year 1800, when Bonaparte concluded a Treaty ..., by which the -entire territory was retroceded to France.” - -Again, Mr. Blaine says: “Fearing that in the threatening conflict (1803) -England, by her superior Naval force, would deprive him of his newly -acquired colonial empire, and greatly enhance her own prestige by -securing all the American possessions, which France had owned prior to -1763, Bonaparte, by a dash in diplomacy, as quick and as brilliant as -his tactics on the field of battle, placed Louisiana beyond the reach of -the British power. In a tone of vehemence and passion he said: ‘I know -the full value of Louisiana. A few lines of a treaty have restored it to -me, and now I must expect to lose it. The English expect to take -possession of it, and it is thus they will begin the war. They have -already twenty ships of the line in the Gulf of Mexico. The conquest of -Louisiana will be easy. I have not a moment to lose in putting it out of -their reach. The English have successively taken from France the -Canadas, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the richest portion -of Asia. But they shall not have the Mississippi, which they covet.’” - -Again quoting from Blaine: “England’s acquisition of Louisiana would -have proved in the highest degree embarrassing, if not disastrous to the -Union. No colonial acquisition ever made by her on any continent has -been so profitable to her commerce, and so strengthening to her military -position, as that of Louisiana would have proved. The fact was clearly -seen by Bonaparte when he hastily made the treaty ceding it to the -United States.” - -Again Blaine: “The conflict of arms (War of 1812) did not occur until -nine years after; and it is a curious and not unimportant fact, that the -most notable defeat of the British troops in the second war of -independence, as the struggle of 1812 has been well named, occurred on -the soil of the territory for whose protection the original precaution -had been taken by Jefferson.” - -The reader will find all of the chapter referred to very interesting as -indeed will be any chapter devoted to our sudden acquisition of the -immense domain called Louisiana. - -The striking sentences quoted above serve to emphasize the fact that it -would not have been unnatural for England to have felt resentment at -this second maneuvering of a vast territory from her grasp. Some -historians have expressed surprise that England did not at once -undertake to take Louisiana, the United States notwithstanding. That -would have meant armed conflict with America at a time of the war in -Europe. Besides, and this is a deduction of the present writer, such a -course would have placed upon England the onus before the world of a war -of conquest in the western continent. So England waited. - -An additional viewpoint is here presented: In the history of the United -States of America, by Henry W. Elson, under the caption “Louisiana” -(Vol. 2, page 230) appears the following paragraph (page 233): “Actual -possession soon placed our title to Louisiana beyond dispute; but -strictly speaking, the sale was not legal. Napoleon had agreed to convey -to Spain a dukedom on the Arno River, for the son-in-law of the Spanish -King, in payment for Louisiana; but the price was never paid. The treaty -of Ildefonso also stipulated that France should never cede the territory -to any foreign power; but Napoleon disregarded this. In point of fact, -France, therefore, did not own Louisiana; and even if she had owned it, -the cession, according to the French Constitution, could not be made -without the consent of the Chamber of Deputies, and this the First -Consul never obtained and never sought. The French people were -astonished at this action of their ruler; but he was a master, and they -were powerless. Far sadder was the wail from Spain. The Spanish -Government protested briefly, pathetically; but its voice was not -heard.” - -From the above quotation the reader can appreciate England’s attitude, -as to the legality of the United States’ title to Louisiana, maintained -until January 8, 1815, when the highest law known to nations dissipated -that attitude forever. - -There are doubtless many today, as we bask in the enjoyment of National -security and other national blessings, who do not appreciate the -vastness, the importance, of the Louisiana domain, the acquisition of -which Dr. Sloane of Princeton says translated our young republic into a -world power. According to an early authority the domain comprised -829,987 square miles, and by later authority over a million square -miles. In the Louisiana Purchase territory are today comprehended the -following states: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, -Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, -South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - Background—Impressment. - - -The impressment policy of the English Government applied to the new -American country, was very galling. Under that policy American ships -were stopped on the high seas, and seamen taken from them under guise of -being British deserters. Many good Americans were forced into British -service. The young victim country protested. In 1801 the impressment -practice fell off and seemingly was abandoned. (See Elson’s History of -the U. S., pages 246 to 252, Vol. 2.) A quotation is given from Elson, -page 247, Vol. 2: “This (impressment) practice had fallen into the -background during the short season of peace between France and England, -that ended in 1803, but with the renewal of the war it had been revived -with alarming vigor.” - -Whether that “alarming vigor” was due entirely to war exigencies of -recruiting its Navy, or whether the British Government designed it as a -provocation to the young western Republic, to take the onus of declaring -war, under guise of which the coveted floating title to Louisiana could -be appropriated, is a matter for deduction, not appearing of record. - -At any rate, the impressment practice re-aroused resentment in the young -republic, and that resentment found chief expression in the then -Southwest, resulting under the leadership of that section and over the -opposition of the New England States, or rather of that of the assertive -Federalists therein, in a declaration of war against England, on the -ground of the degradation of our sovereignty. - -It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss the War of 1812, except -as its events may relate to his mission, that of correcting falsehood -and error in the historical books adopted as textbooks for the school -children of America. - -The War of 1812 was heralded as a mistake by the Federalists, opponents -of the then administration. While the incipient Navy gave a brilliant -account of itself, justifying the proud boast that man for man and gun -for gun, the U. S. Navy was the equal of anything afloat, for two and a -half years the record shows that land events in the main were untoward, -climaxed by the capture, and sacking and burning of the public -buildings, of the National Capital in August, 1814, and thus the Federal -Press offensively took the “I-told-you-so” attitude. - -Early in the war the Emperor of Russia extended his good offices as -mediator. The United States Government accepted the offer, being -earnestly desirous of honorable peace, and having nothing to conceal -from neutral investigation. But the English government declined the -Russian offer, indicating that it preferred to treat direct. Later as a -result of British invitation, a Peace Commission met at Ghent, Belgium. - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - Negotiations at Ghent. - - -A separate chapter is devoted to the joint conference at Ghent because -therein is shown the subtle, diplomatically concealed, purpose of the -then English Government. The record of the proceedings of the -conference, in order to be fully understood, should be read in the light -of the afterwards revealed fact that, at the same time these -negotiations were being conducted, the expedition against Louisiana was -secretly planned and dispatched. Things that are puzzling in the making -often become clear in the aftermath. And so it is in this case. - -The defeat and resultant abdication of Napoleon (April 4, 1814) released -England’s European troops for pursuing the American war with greater -vigor, and to punish the United States for having declared war at -England’s most embarrassing moment. It would not be a violent assumption -to say that at least some members of the British Government felt that -the time was opportune at last to take Louisiana and thus redress a -grievance nurtured since 1803, when Bonaparte snatched that great domain -from England’s outstretched hands. - -The exact date on which the Louisiana expedition was determined upon is -not material. Plain evidence discloses that during the joint peace -negotiation its details were arranged and the army sent forward to take -New Orleans. We now know that after the capture of Washington by the -British and the burning and sacking of the public buildings there -(August 24, 1814), the British invading forces, after being later -repulsed in an attack upon Baltimore, repaired under orders to Nigril -Bay, Jamaica, to await recruits for the expedition against New Orleans. -With the time then required for ocean travel, these orders must have -been given prior to, or about the time of the meeting of the Peace -Commissioners at Ghent, August 4, 1814. - -Let us visualize the two groups assembled at Ghent. First, consider the -five Americans. They were earnestly desirous of a quick and honorable -peace. Their country was riven with dissatisfaction produced by a -powerful anti-administration and anti-war party, seemingly in control of -the northeastern states, making dire threats, unless hostilities were -soon ended. - -The American Commissioners were prepared and authorized to forego the -questions of impressment and orders in council, which caused the war, -and conclude a peace pact on the basis of the status before the war. For -a month they had been waiting the coming of the British Commissioners. -It is evident there was a purpose on the part of the British Government -to delay. - -The second group consisted of three suave English Commissioners, who -appeared at Ghent, as before stated, August 4th. - -These English Commissioners began by making, on behalf of their -Government, demands objectionable and humiliating, the discussion of -which, often at long distance with the London Government officials, -consumed time. Finally the American Commissioners were forced to write -to Washington for further instructions. - -From “The Diplomacy of the War of 1812,” by Frank A. Updyke, which is a -most valuable account of the Peace conference, quotation is given from -pages 220 and 221. “It was the unanimous opinion of the American -ministers that Great Britain’s policy was to consume as much time as -possible before the termination of negotiations, in order that some -decided victory might be gained in the war which would make it easier -for her to insist upon her demands.” - -This quotation is given to show that our ministers recognized the -British tactics as sparring for time; but the record does not show that -any one of them thought of New Orleans as the objective point of British -design. - -The records in connection with the negotiations are voluminous, and make -very interesting reading. But viewed in the after revealed facts, the -truth stands out so clearly that the proceedings of the Peace Conference -in English consideration and the secret expedition to capture New -Orleans were so closely inter-related that in arriving at the material -verity, much material in that conference should be disregarded as -intended by the English to delay and becloud, and so matters coming -before the Conference referring to Louisiana should only be considered -in connection with our mission. - -Frank A. Updyke, Ph.D. of Dartmouth College, in his “The Diplomacy of -the War of 1812,” quoted from above, has given a condensed, fully -annotated, account of the proceedings of the Peace Conference. It is a -work, published in 1915, which deserves place as a supplementary -textbook in every college and high school. I have made liberal use of -Dr. Updyke’s volume, which merits high place for research effort and -reference. - -The Joint Commission had been in session a little over two months when -the first note was struck significant of the British underlying purpose. -It was in the communication of the English Government through their -ministers to the American Commissioners. The document was dated October -8, 1814. (See American State papers.) - -“The first paragraph,” says Updyke (page 269), “attempted to show the -illegality of the purchase of Louisiana and the spirit of territorial -aggrandisement on the part of the United States which this act -manifested.” - -It might have been inferred that this attack upon the legality of the -title to Louisiana would be followed by a demand of some sort; but no -such demand was made. In fact, the treaty as finally adopted, contained -no mention of Louisiana. - -It is highly pertinent to ask a question as to what was the purpose of -this attack upon the title of Louisiana. All such things have a purpose. - -In the light of present knowledge that purpose is clear. The great -expedition against New Orleans being near completion, it is obvious that -the British Government recognized the good diplomatic position before -the world, after the capture of Louisiana, of showing a record of fair -warning as justification for retention. - -The reply of the Americans to the note of October 8th was dated October -13th. (See American State papers.) - -Quotation is given from Updyke, page 284: - -“While endeavoring to make the reply brief, the American ministers could -not refrain from discussing some other topics adverted to by the British -in their note. The British ministers had made the charge that the -acquisition of Louisiana by the United States was illegal, Spain having -offered a remonstrance against its cession and the right of France to -make it. To this the American note responded that, although the Spanish -minister at Washington had made such remonstrance, at that very time -orders were given by Spain for the delivery of Louisiana to France. So -France was in actual possession of the territory when she disposed of it -to the United States.” - -Another matter, although not in chronological turn, may be here -presented, as showing further the English attitude towards Louisiana. In -the course of the note of the Americans to the British, dated November -10, 1814 (see American State papers), Updyke says, page 307: “The -American note refused to consent to the British proposal to fix the -northwest boundary by the line from the lake of the Woods to the -Mississippi unless the boundaries of Louisiana should also be provided -for in the settlement.” - -The British ministers in referring the note to their Government, said -they were unwilling to consent to a discussion of the Louisiana -boundary, for their doing so might be taken as a recognition of the -right of the United States to the occupation of the territory. (See -Updyke, page 310.) - -What might be called the Uti Possidetis scheme was embraced in a British -note of October 21st (see American State papers). The British proposed -the Uti Possidetis principle, as a basis of settlement, under which each -side would keep what territory it should be possessed of at the -promulgation of peace. - -The reason behind this proposal seems now very patent. The adoption of -this principle would have enabled England, by indisputable treaty right, -to retain Louisiana, which she confidently expected to take. - -But the Americans opposed this principle and firmly insisted on a treaty -based upon conditions at the beginning of the war. - -The English were very insistent and for a time there appeared a new -danger that the conference would break up. But, as will appear later, -British diplomacy, the most skilful in the world, found a way to -accomplish the main objective of the Uti Possidetis; that is to say, the -retention of Louisiana after the expected reduction of New Orleans. - -While these peace negotiations were simmering at Ghent, the -well-planned, secret expedition against New Orleans was completed in -detail, and with confident feeling of assurance that, because of its -size and veteran fibre, it would be invincible, it was finally put on -its way to join the waiting troops at Nigril Bay, Jamaica. Sir Edward -Pakenham was appointed Commander of the Expeditionary forces. A. C. -Buell, in his “History of Andrew Jackson,” published in 1904, states -that Pakenham’s order was dated November 4, 1814, and read according to -English war office minute; that General Pakenham “shall proceed to -Plymouth and embark there for Louisiana to assume command of the forces -operating for the reduction of that province.” Buell cites as authority -Bathurst papers; State Paper Office, London. - -On the assumption of the correctness of Buell’s citation, the term -“Province” as applied to Louisiana, in English official orders, -represents the radical difference of viewpoint as to Louisiana at the -time between the British Government and the American Union, of which the -English termed province was a fair possession from which already one -state had been carved. (Louisiana in 1812.) - -While the British Expedition was ploughing the seas, unexpected -resistance was forming under an American general, who didn’t know what -defeat was. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. - Negotiations at Ghent—Continued. - - -We will now return to the parleys at Ghent. The British continued to -insist on the Uti Possidetis as a basis of a Peace Treaty, but proposed -that it be “subject to such modifications as mutual convenience may be -found to require.” In a letter to the British Commissioners, dated -October 18th, Lord Bathurst, quoted by Updyke (page 288), cited several -points on which mutual accommodations might be had; but Louisiana was -not one of the points. For if it had been there would have seemingly -been no use planning and sending out the great expedition for the -“reduction of that province.” - -From many interesting details touching the Uti Possidetis proposals, the -reader is referred to Updyke (“The Diplomacy of the War of 1812”), pages -288 to 319. - -Finally, realizing the unshaken adherence of the Americans to the -antebellum status, the British gave up the Uti Possidetis demand, and by -specific wording obviously sought to protect the Louisiana design. - -In the amended proposal of the British (see British to American -ministers Nov. 26, 1814), there are two things highly pertinent to the -inquiry we are conducting, to establish the real value of the Battle of -New Orleans. The first was the provision that peace would not be -effective until after ratification by both countries. The second -consisted in the proposed wording for the mutual restoration clause as -follows: “Belonging to either party, taken by the other.” The effect of -this wording in the mutual restoration clause, would have been that all -territory belonging to either party, taken by the other, should be -returned. But this would not embrace Louisiana, for from the English -standpoint, it did not legally belong to the United States. - -As to the first point, a quotation is here given from Updyke (page 317): -“The amended project returned by the British commissioners provided that -the notification for the cessation of the war be issued after -ratifications of the treaty should have been exchanged rather than at -the time of the signature. This was designed, it was supposed, to give -time for the completion of the British plans against New Orleans, the -successful outcome of which was never doubted.” - -The American ministers, on November 30th, consented to the substitution -of the day of exchange of ratifications for that of the signature of the -treaty, as the time for cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the -period when prizes at sea shall be restored. (See American to British -ministers, Nov. 30, 1814.) - -This agreement was duly carried into the treaty, as we have heretofore -set forth, Article XI, prescribing all details. - -The American ministers opposed the proposed words in the mutual -restoration clause, “belonging to either party, taken by the other.” -They insisted on the words, “taken by either party from the other.” -Strong reasons were given by the Americans for their attitude, but the -British ministers refused to yield, saying the matter would be referred -to their Government (Updyke, pp. 324-325). - -The British Government, on December 6th, instructed their Commissioners -to insist upon the retention of the words in dispute, and advanced -skilful arguments, in which the real purpose was not revealed. For a -digest of these arguments, see Updyke, pages 335-336. - -To the present day reader, having knowledge of the expedition, which was -then on its way to capture New Orleans, the English purpose seems very -manifest. - -With diplomatic art the British Government sought to make it appear that -the disputed words, “belonging to either party and taken by the other,” -were founded in the objective relating to the islands in Passamaquoddy -Bay during the time of the agreed upon reference to a commission to -determine the ownership of these Islands. - -The Americans, not aware, of course, of the expedition against New -Orleans, accepted the viewpoint advanced as to the disputed words, but -while rejecting the words, indicated that they would be “willing to -admit such a modification as should secure the right of Great Britain -from being affected or impaired by yielding possession of the Islands to -the United States.” (Updyke, p. 343.) - -The British ministers replied, arguing England’s position. That position -in effect was, that during the war she had taken these islands, the -title to which was in dispute, and that to call upon her to restore -them, because they were occupied by the United States at the beginning -of the war, would be unjust; that having agreed to a commission to -settle the ownership of the islands, she was willing, if need be, to -accede to a clause which would especially guard the ultimate right -against the prejudice which the American ministers feared might arise -from the continued possession by Great Britain. The British ministers -admitted the comparatively small value of the territory in question, but -claimed that yielding possession of the Islands involved a point of -honor on the part of Great Britain, and, if insisted upon, might make -the conclusion of peace impossible. (See Updyke, pp. 343-344; report of -conference of Dec. 12, 1814, given by British Commissioners to Lord -Castlereagh.) - -The Americans yielded the point, and thus it appears that the British -Government secured the accession of the principle of the great concealed -objective on a matter of minor importance. Thus the word “possessions” -was admitted into the mutual restoration clause of the peace treaty. - -That mutual restoration clause, as adopted, and incorporated in Article -1, of the Treaty of Ghent, reads as follows: - -“All territory, places and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party -from the other during the War, or which may be taken after the signing -of this Treaty, excepting only the Islands hereinafter mentioned, shall -be restored without delay and without causing any destruction or -carrying away of any of the artillery or other public property -originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain -therein upon the exchange of the ratification of this Treaty, or any -slaves or other private property; and all archives, records, deeds, and -papers, either of a public nature or belonging to private persons, -which, in the course of the War, may have fallen into the hands of the -officers, of either party shall be, as far as may be practicable, -forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and persons -to whom they respectively belong. Such of the Islands in the Bay of -Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both parties, shall remain in the -possession of the party in whose occupation they may be at the time of -the exchange of the ratification of this Treaty until the decision -respecting the title to said islands shall have been made in conformity -with the fourth article of this Treaty. No disposition made by this -Treaty as to such possession of such islands and territories claimed by -both parties shall, in any manner whatever, be construed to affect the -right of either.” - -The Treaty, from which the clause above is quoted, can of course be -found in Washington, but copy may be seen at almost any general public -library, in the volume herebefore referred to containing various -Treaties of the United States. - -The reader, who has been following us in our showing of the various -stages of the development of the British design to protect, by -diplomacy, the Louisiana expedition, will recognize the significance of -the word “possessions.” By reason of that word, the British were in -position to maintain, after capturing Louisiana, that it was not subject -to return under the mutual restoration clause adopted, not being, under -English construction, a legal “possession” of the United States, formal -notice of that construction having been given in the treaty -negotiations. The subtly accomplished insertion of the word in the -treaty represented a triumph of ulterior British diplomatic design over -the very able, hard-headed, but open and candid American commissioners, -who were entirely in the dark as to the Expedition dispatched to seize -Louisiana. - -That word was of course not as exclusive of argument as the Uti -Possidetis principle first proposed, and insisted upon almost as a sine -qua non; nor was it as clear as the wording subsequently urged, -“belonging to either party and taken by the other”; but it was all -sufficient, backed by the British conviction that Louisiana was not a -legal possession of the United States, and supported by the mighty -British martial power, then unleashed from European war. - -It is obvious to the writer that but for the word “possessions,” or -wording of similar import, the treaty would not have been agreed to by -the British; in fact, such indication was given by the British ministers -at the joint conference December 12th, under the guise of the principle -pertaining to the Passamaquoddy Islands. - -Any presumption that Great Britain, after planning the great expedition -against Louisiana, would have, within a few weeks following the final -dispatch of the military forces, signed a peace treaty, recalling those -forces from an attained, long-dreamed-of conquest, is a reflection upon -the intelligence of the British Government of 1814-15. - -With the treaty agreed to, the English Government became anxious about -its ratification by President Madison. Significant evidence of this is -furnished by Doctor Updyke, in his work from which we have already made -a number of quotations. On page 355, Updyke says, “The British ministry -had hoped that their last communication would enable the commissioners -to close the negotiations for the treaty of peace. They were, however, -suspicious of President Madison, and feared he would not sign the -treaty. For this reason it was stipulated that the war should not cease -until after the exchange of ratifications at Washington. They counted -upon having a strong English fleet in the Chesapeake and the Delaware at -the time that Baker, the bearer of the British copy of the treaty, -should reach Washington; and they also counted upon the disposition of -the Eastern states to secede from the Union, as likely to ‘frighten -Madison.’ It was suggested that if Madison should refuse to ratify the -treaty the British Government should immediately propose to make a -separate treaty with the New England States, which it was believed could -be accomplished.” - -Dr. Updyke gives as authority for the foregoing paragraph: “Liverpool to -Castlereagh, December 23, 1814; Wellington Supplementary Dispatches, IX, -495.” - -Lord Liverpool was prime minister and Lord Castlereagh was secretary for -foreign affairs. - -The digest given of correspondence between these high English Government -officials makes it plain that the English Government was anxious for -ratification of the Peace Treaty and that they were fearful that Madison -would not sign. - -As confirmatory of the Liverpool apprehension it may be mentioned that -the _London Times_, December 31, 1814 (see British Museum), said that -the ratification by Madison depended upon the outcome of the expedition -against New Orleans. The _London Times_ was unfriendly to the Liverpool -government, and was also very hostile to the United States. In the -circumstances it may fairly be presumed that to allay criticism of the -treaty the press was informed of the expected New Orleans coup. - -In view of the unanimous action of the American Commissioners in -agreeing to the Treaty, it becomes very evident that the British -Government anticipated that something would transpire before the Treaty -reached Washington that might cause the President to withhold his -approval. In the light of present knowledge, that something was the -expected British capture of New Orleans. We may well ask the question, -as to why the British Government was so anxious for the ratification of -the Treaty as to plan to “frighten Madison” and threaten separate peace -with New England, thus disrupting the Union, if that Government expected -to turn back Louisiana after its anticipated conquest. That question -carries its own obvious answer. - -Happily for us, and for England as consequences have proved, and for the -world, the dilemma in which the English statesmen thought President -Madison would be placed, was averted. - -While Carroll, with the American copy of the Treaty, and Baker, with the -English copy, also having authority to exchange ratification, ploughed -the seas, an event was in the making of destiny, which, when brought -forth, utterly confounded the carefully laid plans of the -Liverpool-Castlereagh Government, and in fact ushered in a new epoch, a -new and greater era for the young American Republic—never again to be -pointed to as an experiment. - - - - - CHAPTER IX. - Washington, the First of 1815. - - -One of the most thrilling incidents in our history is the reception by -the country of the news of the Battle of New Orleans. It was -theatrically acclaimed, with almost delirious joy, sharply contrasting -with the condition of deep discouragement and gloom it suddenly -dissipated. Seldom has a victory had more dramatic setting. It is well -for us who enjoy the rich blessings of the present, occasionally to read -of the trials and tribulations through which our forebears struggled, -that they might hand these blessings down to us. “If an old man of -perfect memory,” says James Parton, in Chapter 20 of the second volume -of the Life of Andrew Jackson, published in 1860, “were asked to name -the time when the prospects of this republic were shrouded in deepest -gloom, and the largest number of the people despaired of its future, his -answer, I think, would be, ‘the first thirty-seven days of the year -1815.’” (Parton makes an error of two days, for the news of the battle -of New Orleans reached Washington February 4th.) - -“The Capital,” says Parton, “was in ruins” (as a result of its burning -by the British the preceding August). - -Parton further referred to the Hartford Convention, which on January 5th -had closed several weeks of session. This anti-war convention was -denounced as treasonable by administrative papers. It had aroused -gravest apprehensions of disunion unless peace should at once be made. - -In order to convey an idea of the antagonistic spirit prevailing, -quotation is here given from the _Boston Gazette_, of that period: “Is -there a Federalist, a patriot in America, who conceives it his duty to -shed his blood for Bonaparte, for Madison and Jefferson, and that host -of ruffians in Congress, who have set their faces against us for years, -and spirited up the brutal part of the populace to destroy us? Not one! -Shall we, then, any longer be held in slavery, and driven to desperate -poverty by such a graceless faction?” - -Parton further quotes many New England editors as saying: “No more taxes -from New England, till the administration makes peace.” - -Parton further says that the great British expedition, so long mustering -in the West Indies, so long delayed, cast a prodigious shadow before it, -putting New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore on their guard; but that as -the autumn passed without the reappearance of hostile force in the -northern waters, the conviction gained ground that something -overwhelming was in contemplation against the defenseless south and -southwest. - -“It so chanced,” continues Parton, “that the 8th of January was the days -on which it was first whispered about Washington that the President had -received news of the British fleet at the mouth of the Mississippi. From -that time the eyes of the country were fixed upon New Orleans—not -hopefully.” - -“It is not an overstatement of the case,” continues Parton, “to say that -there was not one well informed man in the northern states who believed -that New Orleans could be successfully defended.” - -Again quoting from Parton: “After a week of gossip and foreboding, came -news of the gunboat battle, and its disastrous results; also rumors of a -great armament hovering on the Atlantic coast. ‘We are a lost country,’ -said the Federal papers in doleful concert. ‘A wicked administration has -ruined us. New Orleans having fallen an easy prey, the British General -will leave a few acclimated black regiments to garrison that city, and -bring the Wellington heroes around to the Chesapeake. Baltimore will not -be able to resist. Washington will again be overrun, Philadelphia and -New York will next be attacked, and who shall say with what results? See -to what a pass Jefferson and French democracy have brought a deluded -country!’” - -All sorts of dire rumors were in circulation, and to add to the gloom -that prevailed in Washington and elsewhere, a snow storm of remarkable -violence and extent set in on the 23rd of January, and continued for -three days. Belated mails straggled in, showing that the American Army -was still resisting. “New Orleans is not taken yet,” said the Western -members, and the Republican editors. “It is merely a question of time,” -replied the Federalists; “the next mail will finish New Orleans and -you.” - -In the midst of that setting, on February 4th, a horseman came into -Washington, bearing glorious news for the Administration forces. He had -dispatches from General Jackson, detailing the decisive victory of -January 8th. - -Washington was wild with delight at the unexpected victory. “That -evening,” still quoting from Parton, “the town was blazing with light, -and the whole populace was abroad, now thronging about the White House -(temporary), cheering the President, then surging around the houses of -the Secretaries, and residences of the leading supporters of the war, -rending the air with shouts.... The next issue of the _National -Intelligencer_ cannot be glanced over to this day without exciting in -the mind something of the feeling which is wont to express itself by -three times three and one cheer more. The great news was headed, in the -_Intelligencer’s_ largest type, ‘Almost Incredible Victory!!!!’” - -It was worth a life time to experience the jubilation of that night! It -was the sudden restoration of a people’s national self-respect. - -The news of the reception of the victory elsewhere was equally as -thrilling. It aroused what Parton called the “maddest enthusiasm.” A -quotation may be given from the autobiography of Mr. John Binns: “A -general illumination was ordered in Philadelphia. Few indeed there were -yet there were a few who on that night closed their window shutters and -mourned the defeat of the enemies of their country. I had early -intelligence of this joyful news, and gladly, by an extra, spread it -abroad. I put scene painters to work, and had a transparency painted, -which covered nearly the whole front of my house. There had been a heavy -snow fall, and there was that evening from nine to twelve inches of snow -on the ground. That, however, did not prevent men, women and children -from parading the street, and delighting their eyes by looking at the -illumination and illuminated transparencies, which made the principal -streets of our city as light as day. My transparency represented General -Jackson on horseback at the head of his staff, in pursuit of the enemy, -with the motto: ‘This day shall ne’er go by, from this day to the ending -of the world, but He, in it, shall be remembered.’” - -This gives in brief a glimpse of the effect in the country of the news -of the victory at New Orleans. How can any American describe it as a -needless battle? After the event it might have been deplored by the -British as needless, just as any lost battle may be so regarded. - -Just ten days after that lone horseman rode into Washington on February -4th, the Treaty reached the Capitol, and under the inspiration of the -great victory at New Orleans, it was joyfully and speedily ratified. - - - - - CHAPTER X. - But What If the Issue of the Battle Had Been Different? - - -As stated in the last chapter, the Peace Treaty was speedily and -joyfully ratified. But what if the issue of the battle had been -different? - -The chronology of the Treaty may here be given: - -Signed at Ghent, on the 24th day of December, 1814, by the Peace -Commissioners representing the two countries; - -Ratified for England by the Prince Regent on December 31st, 1814. - -Reached Washington the night of February 14th, 1815; - -Sent by President Madison to the Senate February 15th; - -Ratification advised by the Senate, February 16th; - -Ratified by President Madison February 17th, and ratification exchanged -with England’s representative the same day; - -Promulgated by President Madison February 18th; thus ending the period -of hostilities. - -Would the United States Senate have advised ratification, or would the -President have ratified, if the British on January 8th, had swept aside -that defensive army and had carried into effect the design to capture -and occupy Louisiana? - -Probably no more grave or serious situation has ever confronted an -American President than that which would have been presented. By -ratifying the treaty, the President would have satisfied the New England -malcontents, who had given veiled threats of disunion. But by the -ratification with England in possession of Louisiana, and holding that -it was not a legal possession of the United States, the President would -have faced a desperate alternative of giving up Louisiana, and the -trans-Mississippi territory; or referring it to the issue of a future -war, or future negotiations. - -It is the belief of the writer that President Madison would have -declined to ratify the Treaty, as long as the British remained in -occupation of Louisiana; thus prolonging the war with its uncertainties, -and taking the risk of the disruption of the Union, through a separate -peace with England by the New England States; a proposition which, as we -have seen, was in contemplation by the English Government. - -All of these questions, so momentous, to the American Union, were -happily and gloriously averted by the marvelous defensive victory at New -Orleans. - -And yet, American historians teach our children that that battle was a -needless one! - -Oh, ignorance! Oh, prejudice! Oh, pro-English!! - - - - - CHAPTER XI. - Testimony From General Jackson Himself. - - -In presenting this case against the school historians, which he feels -has already been made, to the satisfaction of any impartial reader, the -writer has refrained from using much confirmatory material in order to -be as brief as possible. But in the history of Andrew Jackson, written -by A. C. Buell, and published in 1904, there occurs illuminating data -highly apropos in this connection. It may be remarked that Buell is not -a favorite of some historians. Buell was distinctly not pro-English. - -In chapter 3 of the second volume of Buell’s history, entitled “British -Designs on Louisiana,” the author reiterates a statement before made, -that Jackson’s Army of New Orleans saved the Louisiana Purchase, and -adds that few people of the millions who were celebrating in 1904 the -centenary of the colossal transaction between Napoleon Bonaparte and -Thomas Jefferson, realized the significance of these words. Buell later -says: “Viewed in the light of its actual influence on the map of North -America, and the fortunes of this Republic, it was the most important -battle ever fought between Great Britain and the United States.... The -real, vast, enduring value of the Battle of New Orleans, lay in the fact -that it prevented another war.” - -In adducing evidence of the purpose of the English Government against -Louisiana, Buell says: “The fleet carried more than an army, the -narratives of the subaltern and Capt. Cooke, reputable British officers -of 85th and 43rd Light Infantry, respectively, tell us there was on -board the fleet ‘a complete civil government staff’ to be installed in -place of the State Government of Louisiana at the moment of occupation. -One of them, with a spice of humor, informs us that one member of this -‘civil government staff’ was ‘a worthy Colonial official whose -confidence in the success of the Expedition led him to resign the -comfortable position of Collector of Barbadoes to take the larger and -more lucrative post for the (to-be) Crown Colony of Louisiana.” - -As other members of the civil government staff Mr. Buell names Honorable -Mr. Elwood, Lieut. Governor, transferred from Trinidad, and Mr. -Dockstader, transferred from upper Canada; also an Attorney-General, an -Admiralty Judge, and a Secretary of the Colony, sent from England -direct. - -Mr. Buell continues: “Besides his general orders at Plymouth, Pakenham -brought with him a proclamation approved by the Home Government or -Colonial office. This proclamation was to be published as soon as the -British Army should occupy New Orleans. It promised protection to -everybody, general amnesty to all previously engaged in hostilities, and -proclaimed the sovereignty of England, in behalf of Spain, over all the -territory fraudulently conveyed by Bonaparte to the United States. It -denied the validity of the secret treaty by which Spain re-ceded -Louisiana to France in 1800. It denied Bonaparte’s right to act for -France in 1803. And finally it ‘denounced the pretentions of the United -States to sovereignty under the alleged purchase from Bonaparte.’ This -proclamation was in printed form at British headquarters the night -before the battle, and its contents were well known to many British -officers. The night after the battle it disappeared. Every copy of it -was burned! - -“All this evidence was obtained from British prisoners taken in the -battle of January 8th. But it lacked one link to make the chain perfect. -That was evidence of specific design and fixed policy on the part of the -British Government. In the absence of such evidence the cabinet of St. -James might, in emergency, declare that the scheme of a ‘crown colony’ -and the proclamation itself were the acts of General Pakenham—to be -approved if he succeeded or disavowed if he failed. The needed link was -supplied long after.” - -“The final link in the chain,” says Mr. Buell, “was furnished by General -Jackson himself. In the fall of 1875, the author, then a staff -correspondent of the _Missouri Republican_, visited former Governor -William Allen, of Ohio, at his farm near Chillicothe. During the visit, -which was of three days’ duration, the venerable statesman’s -conversation—when not upon agricultural subjects—was mainly of -reminiscences of his earlier public life. All was interesting; some of -it historically valuable, particularly those parts relating to the -British invasion of Louisiana. What Governor Allen said on this subject -we reproduce here, exactly as it was printed in 1875.” - -Governor Allen’s interview is here given in full: - -“Near the end of General Jackson’s second administration and shortly -after the admission of Arkansas to the Union, I, being Senator elect -from Ohio, went to Washington to take the seat on March 4th. - -“General Jackson,—he always preferred to be called General rather than -Mr. President, and so we always addressed him by his military -title—General Jackson invited me to lunch with him. No sooner were we -seated than he said: ‘Mr. Allen, let us take a little drink to the new -star in the flag—Arkansas.’ This ceremony being duly observed, the -General said: ‘Allen, if there had been disaster instead of victory at -New Orleans, there never would have been a state of Arkansas.’” - -“This, of course, interested me, and I asked: ‘Why do you say that, -General?’ - -“Then he said, that if Pakenham had taken New Orleans, the British would -have claimed and held the whole Louisiana Purchase. But I said: ‘You -know, General Jackson, that the treaty of Ghent, which had been signed -fifteen days before the battle, provided for restoration of all -territory, places and possessions taken by either nation from the other -during the war, with certain unimportant exceptions.’ - -“‘Yes, of course,’ he replied, ‘But the minutes of the conference at -Ghent as kept by Mr. Gallatin, represent the British commissioners as -declaring in exact words: ‘We do not admit Bonaparte’s construction of -the law of nations; and we cannot accept it in relation to any subject -matter before us.’ - -“‘At that moment,’ pursued General Jackson, ‘none of our Commissioners -knew what the real meaning of these words was. When they were uttered, -the British Commissioners knew that Pakenham’s expedition had been -decided on. Our Commissioners did not know it. Now, since I have been -Chief Magistrate, I have learned from diplomatic sources of the most -unquestionable authority, that the British ministry did not intend the -Treaty of Ghent to apply to the Louisiana Purchase at all. The whole -corporation of them, from 1803 to 1815—Pitt, the Duke of Portland, -Granville, Percival, Lord Liverpool and Castlereagh—denied the legal -right of Napoleon to sell Louisiana to us, and they held, therefore, -that we had no right to that territory. So you see, Allen, that the -words of Mr. Goulburn, on behalf of the British Commissioners, which I -have quoted to you from Albert Gallatin’s Minutes of the Conference, had -a far deeper significance than our commissioners could perpetrate. Those -words were meant to lay the foundation for a claim on the Louisiana -Purchase entirely external to the provisions of the Treaty of Ghent. And -in that way the British Government was signing a treaty with one hand in -front while with the other hand behind its back it was despatching -Pakenham’s army to seize the fairest of our possessions. - -“‘You can also see, my dear William,’ said the old General, waxing warm -(having once or twice more during the luncheon toasted the new star), -‘you can also see what an awful mess such a situation would have been if -the British programme had been carried out in full. But Providence -willed otherwise. All the tangled web that the cunning of the English -Diplomats could weave around our unsuspecting commissioners at Ghent was -torn to pieces and soaked with British blood in half an hour at New -Orleans by the never-missing rifles of my Tennessee and Kentucky -pioneers. And that ended it. British diplomacy could do wonders, but it -couldn’t provide against such a contingency as that. The British -Commissioners could throw sand in the eyes of ours at Ghent, but they -couldn’t help the cold lead that my riflemen sprinkled in the faces of -their soldiers at New Orleans. Now, Allen, you have the whole story. Now -you know why Arkansas was saved at New Orleans. Let’s take another -little one.’” - -Thomas E. Watson, at one time United States Senator from Georgia, in a -history of Jackson, written after Buell’s history, quotes this interview -and comments that it settles the question, and that if the British had -captured New Orleans, the United States boundary line would have stopped -at the Mississippi. - - - - - CHAPTER XII. - Captain Garland’s Testimony On the Spot. - - -Captain Henry Garland was one of Jackson’s young officers at New -Orleans. In view of the brilliance and stirring eloquence of a speech -made by him, which I am about to give, from the same chapter heretofore -quoted from Buell, it will be interesting to give a digest of Buell’s -description of him: He was born at Nantes, France, his father a merchant -of Norfolk, Virginia, residing there as Commercial Agent for American -importing houses. He received his education in French schools. Coming to -America, he went to Tennessee, and in the War of 1812 volunteered in -Coffee’s mounted riflemen, serving with distinction throughout the war. - -In the latter part of March, 1815, the officers of the Louisiana militia -gave a banquet to those of the Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi -troops and the Regulars, on the eve of the disbandment of Jackson’s -Army. Captain Garland was selected by his comrades to respond in French -on their behalf. - -“The guests,” said Buell, “were welcomed on behalf of the Creole hosts -and hostesses by Vicar-General, the Most Reverend Abbe Dubourg, Bishop -of Louisiana, who made a brief address of welcome, first in English and -then in French. In conclusion, the Abbe expressed sorrow that such an -awful battle should have been fought and so many souls sent unprepared -into the presence of the Creator, two weeks after the Treaty of Peace -had been signed on the other side of the Ocean.” - -According to Buell, the Abbe’s remarks changed the whole character of -Garland’s reply. He spoke in French, which was afterwards translated. - -The writer recommends a full reading of this, at points, remarkably -eloquent speech, from which some excerpts are here given. - -After some introductory remarks, Captain Garland said: “The most -reverend prelate, in his otherwise well chosen remarks, suggested that -it was a pity that such an awful battle should have been fought after -the Treaty was signed across the wide water. I do not agree with him. It -needed that battle to make the Treaty good. It made no difference when -the Treaty was signed. Without that battle it must have been waste -paper. - -“The Treaty as written, did not mean anything. It says that the -territorial status quo ante bellum shall be observed. But the British -Cabinet held ‘’l’arriere pensee’ about that. They never admitted -Napoleon’s right to convey Louisiana to us through President Jefferson. -They did not mean to include the Louisiana Purchase in the territorial -status quo ante bellum! - -“The Treaty signed in ink on the 24th of December was a cheat. But the -Treaty that the Pioneers of Tennessee and Kentucky punctuated with rifle -bullets the 8th of January will stand. The English diplomats at Ghent -held, as I have said, ‘’l’arriere-pensee.’ But the British soldiers who -lay down to die in front of Kentucky and Tennessee the 8th of January on -Chalmette plain were sincere and honest. It was in their life blood that -the real treaty was written; not in the ink of Ghent. - -“The English plan of subjugation was complete. Soon after the battle it -was learned that General Pakenham had a proclamation written, signed and -ready to be promulgated the moment his Army should enter the City. This -proclamation denied the right of Napoleon to sell Louisiana, denounced -the pretentions of the United States to its sovereignty, declared that -Spain, the rightful possessor, was incapable of maintaining her -territorial rights, and, finally, asserted a provisional occupation by -the British forces as a virtual protectorate in behalf of the Spanish -Crown. The night after the battle, this proclamation was burned. It may -have been used to illuminate the scene where the corpse of its author -was being prepared for shipment to England in a cask of rum. - -“It is commonly known that, the night of January 7th, a council of war -was held in the British camp. It is also known to many that, on that -occasion, Major-General Sir Samuel Gibbs spoke of General Jackson’s Army -as a ‘backwoods rabble.’ He was right. That’s what we are—from the point -of view of a British regular. We are ‘Backwoodsmen,’ because we were -born and raised in little log cabins all along our great frontier. The -mothers who gave us milk, made their own clothes, and ours, too, of -homespun or of buckskin. As soon as we could lift a rifle we had to hunt -our meat in the woods. Yes, we are ‘backwoodsmen.’ And from the point of -view of a British regular, we are a ‘rabble,’ too. That is, we are not -soldiers in the regular sense of the term. We are not enlisted; we don’t -get any pay. We are simply assembled, as volunteers, to defend our -country. We have a kind of organization, it is true; but it is as -independent companies, composed of neighbors, and our officers are -simply those men whose characters and experience point them out as -natural leaders. In one word, we have no regulations, except those of -common sense; no discipline, except that of common consent; no mastery, -one over the other, except that of manhood! Such are the men who rallied -from Tennessee and Kentucky when Andrew Jackson called. - -“Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, they are a ‘backwoods rabble.’ They met, -say, three times their number of soldiers who were the Pride of England! -And the ‘Backwoods Rabble’ laid that ‘Pride of England’ low!” - - * * * * * * * * - -“And now just one word more: Most people say that our American Republic -was born the fourth day of July, 1776, at Philadelphia. This is not -true. It was only begotten then. It was born when Burgoyne surrendered -at Saratoga. It was baptised when Cornwallis yielded at Yorktown. But it -was never confirmed, as they say in the religion of the Holy Saviour, -until the 8th of last January! - -“That day saw not merely the repulse and destruction of a British Army, -but it taught the whole world a lesson never to be forgot. It needs not -the gift of prophecy to foresee that the battle fought by Andrew Jackson -and his ‘backwoods rabble’ did more than repulse cowardly and -treacherous invasion. It taught to all the princes and kings and -emperors on the face of the earth that they must let our young Republic -alone!” - -Apart from his testimony as to Pakenham’s intended proclamation, and -apart from his estimate of British diplomacy, the speech of Captain -Garland is well worth preserving as a specimen of real, patriotic -eloquence. - - * * * * * * * * - -From the mass of evidence, available to any earnest historian, the -writer has selected one more witness, whose testimony is compressed, in -an incidental paragraph. At the meeting of the American Historical -Association in New Orleans in 1903, Dr. W. M. Sloane read a paper -entitled, “The World Aspects of the Louisiana Purchase.” It is published -in Volume I of the “Proceedings of the American Historical Association -of 1903.” In that paper (page 102 of Proceedings above cited) appears -this sentence: “But for Jefferson’s wisdom in explorating it (Louisiana) -might have remained a wilderness long after settlement began; Great -Britain coveted it in 1815 when Jackson saved it.” There is a sentence -compact with fact. Dr. William M. Sloane (now dead) was at the time of -the address, and for many years professor of history at Princeton -University, and a recognized authority on history. - -In all literature there cannot be found a more concrete, comprehensive -line: “Great Britain coveted it in 1815 when Jackson saved it.” -Pro-English historians may deftly turn and twist this and other facts to -their purpose; but let me give a tocsin call: PRO-ENGLISH HISTORIANS -SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS, AND YOUNG AMERICA TAUGHT ONLY THE -UNGARBLED, UNVARNISHED TRUTH. - - - - - CHAPTER XIII. - Recapitulation. - - -The writer, in these pages, has shown by what must be conceded on all -sides, irrefragable evidence that school histories are in error in -saying the Battle of New Orleans was fought after peace, and was -therefore a needless battle. - -The writer has also shown by evidence he considers conclusive, that -England held as invalid the title of the United States to Louisiana, -acquired by sale from Bonaparte to the United States in 1803; that -England deliberately planned the conquest of Louisiana (with the -resultant development, if successful, of a great dominion to the west of -the United States, like Canada on the North). That evidence is mainly -furnished by the British themselves. First in the British note to the -United States Peace Commissioners, criticizing the title of the United -States to Louisiana; and, second, in the fitting out and dispatching of -the expedition against New Orleans during the peace negotiations; in the -complete Civil Government staff, for Louisiana, carried by the -expedition; in the record of the peace negotiations, first in the -insistence by the British upon the Uti Possidetis principle, and, -second, when that failed, in the proposal of words to be inserted in the -Mutual Restoration clause, which proposal finally resulted in the word, -“Possessions” in that clause, under which England could hold that -Louisiana, having been taken, was not subject to return, not being a -possession of the United States; further in the letter of Prime Minister -Liverpool to Lord Castlereagh, assuming British occupation of New -Orleans, outlining purpose to “frighten Madison” into signing the Treaty -(thus leaving England in possession of Louisiana). - -After close and careful study, the writer presents as a summary of his -conclusion as to the value of the Battle of New Orleans: - -First, that it was a highly necessary battle on the part of the United -States, rendered so by British aggression; - -Second, that the statement in school and other histories that it was -fought after peace is entirely false, the Peace Treaty itself being -evidence. (All historians, past, present, and to come, cannot change the -text of that Treaty); - -Third, that it saved the Louisiana Purchase to the United States or -averted another war with England; - -Fourth, that it settled forever the question of the title to Louisiana; - -Fifth, that it created a profound impression on the world. Speaking, as -one orator has put it, in language all nations could understand, that -the young American Republic had the will to be free and the power to -enforce that will; - -Sixth, that it marked the last time that the foot of a foreign foe has -been set on American soil, except when Mexico invaded Texas in 1846; - -Seventh, that it practically added to the Peace Treaty that impressment -and orders in council would no longer be imposed by England, for these -obnoxious policies were never sought to be revived; - -Eighth, that it saved this sorely harassed, nearly treason-torn country, -at a critical time in its life, from threatened and possible disunion, -and re-established national self-respect; - -Ninth, that it made Andrew Jackson a national hero, resulting in his -election as President of the United States, and the establishment of -what is known as the Jackson era; - -Tenth, that it resulted in mutual respect and friendship between the -United States and England, which has endured to this day, and which it -is hoped will perpetually endure. - -Could any battle have had a greater or more varied effect? - -School historians and other historians, in appraising the battle as a -needless and useless one, do violence to truth and grossly impose upon -Young America, as well as America in general. - -The underlying American sentiment of honor, truth and justice demands -revision of these school histories, and that right speedily. - -In conclusion, the writer recommends, as revision, in those histories -which desire to dispose of the Battle of New Orleans in a paragraph, the -following: - -The Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, 1815, was one of the most -brilliant defensive victories in history. Many historians have classed -it as a needless victory in that it was fought after peace. That is an -error, for the Peace Treaty, signed by the Commissioners of the two -countries, December 24, 1814, specifically provided that it should not -be effective until ratified by both sides. It was not ratified by the -United States until February 17, 1815, soon after its reception. The -news of the victory came at a critical time in the history of the -country, and was received with great enthusiasm everywhere. It settled -forever all question as to the title of the United States to Louisiana. -It saved Louisiana, or a least averted another war with England. It -resulted in lasting, solid peace with England, which should permanently -endure. As illustration of the character of that peace, it may be -pointed out that the boundary line between the United States and Canada -extending about three thousand miles, has not, on either side, a fort or -fortification. God help the English-speaking people if one should ever -be necessary! - - - _The End._ - - - - - ADDENDA. - - - WORDING OF THE TREATY OF GHENT. - -In addition to the references cited on pages 18 and 30 as to the full -text of the Treaty of Ghent reference may be given to volume compiled by -Hunter Miller entitled: “Treaties and Other International Acts of the -United States of America.” (See volume 2, pages 574-584.) - - - ENGLISH CRITICISM OF U. S. TITLE TO LOUISIANA. - -The third and fourth paragraphs of the note of the British Commissioners -to the American Commissioners at Ghent October 8, 1814, read as follows: - -In adverting for this purpose to the acquisition of Louisiana, the -undersigned must observe that the instrument by which the consent of His -Catholic Majesty is alleged to have been given to the cession of it has -never been made public. His Catholic Majesty was no party to the treaty -by which the cession was made, and if any sanction has been subsequently -obtained from him, it must have been, like other contemporaneous acts of -that monarch, involuntary, and, as such, cannot alter the character of -the transaction. The Marquis of Yrujo, the minister of His Catholic -Majesty at Washington, in a letter addressed to the President of the -United States, formally protested against the cession, and the right of -France to make it; yet in the face of this protestation, so strongly -evincing the decided opinion of Spain as to the illegality of the -proceeding, the President of the United States ratified the treaty. Can -it be contended that the annexation of Louisiana, under such -circumstances, did not mark a spirit of territorial aggrandizement? - -His Britannic Majesty did certainly express satisfaction when the -American Government communicated the event that Louisiana, a valuable -colony in the possession of France, with whom the war had just been -renewed, instead of remaining in the hands of his enemy, had been ceded -to the United States, at that time professing the most friendly -disposition towards Great Britain, and an intention of providing for her -interest in the acquisition. But the conditions under which France had -acquired Louisiana from Spain were not communicated; the refusal of -Spain to consent to its alienation was not known; the protest of her -ambassador had not been made; and many other circumstances attending the -transaction, on which it is now unnecessary to dilate, were, as there is -good to believe, industriously concealed. (From American State Papers, -Foreign Relations, Volume III, page 721.) - -The reply of the American Commissioners is quoted on page 26 of this -volume. - -(Author’s note: From the foregoing we can better understand the refusal -of the British Commissioners to discuss the northern boundary of -Louisiana as proposed in American note of November 10. See page 26, this -volume.) - - - THE UTI POSSIDETIS PROPOSAL. - -The note of the British Commissioners, October 21, 1814, contained the -following paragraph: - -In regard to other boundaries, the American plenipotentiaries, in their -note of August 24, appeared in some measure to object to the -propositions then made by the undersigned, as not being on the basis of -uti possidetis. The undersigned are willing to treat on that basis, -subject to such modifications as mutual convenience may be found to -require; and they trust that the American plenipotentiaries will show, -by their ready acceptance of this basis, that they duly appreciate the -moderation of His Majesty’s Government in so far consulting the honor -and fair pretensions of the United States as, in the relative situation -of the two countries, to authorize such a proposition. (From American -State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume III.) - -(Author’s note: This is an adroit effort to put upon the Americans the -initial suggestion of the Uti Possidetis. The Americans, after seeing -the futility of any treaty agreement as to impressment and trade -restriction, adhered steadily to the Status Quo Ante Bellum basis. They -rejected the Uti Possidetis principle. It should be borne in mind that -at the time of the above note the secret expedition against Louisiana, -assembling in Nigril Bay, Jamaica, was nearing completion.) - - - TIME OF EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATY. - -On November 10, 1814, the American Commissioners submitted a _projet_ of -a treaty containing in article one the statement that “All hostilities, -both by sea and land, shall immediately cease,” and in article fifteen -the statement that “This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified -on both sides, and the respective ratifications mutually exchanged, -shall be binding upon both parties, and the ratifications shall be -exchanged at ______ in the space of ______ months from this day, or -sooner if possible.” - -On November 26 the British Commissioners returned the _projet_, altered -to read that “All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease after -the exchange of ratifications as hereafter mentioned,” and that “This -treaty, when the same shall have ratified on both sides, and the -ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and -the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington with all practical -despatch, in the space of ______ months from this day, or sooner if -practicable.” - -On November 30, 1814, the American Commissioners stated in a note to the -British Commissioners: - -The undersigned consent that the day of the exchange of the -ratifications be substituted to that of the signature of the treaty as -the time for the cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the -periods after which prizes at sea shall be restored; it being understood -that measures shall be adopted for a speedy exchange of ratifications. -(American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume III.) - -(Author’s note: It will thus be seen that the British proposed the date -of ratification as the time of the effectiveness of the treaty, and the -cessation of hostilities, and that the Americans consented, thus -carrying into the treaty the provision so uniformly overlooked by our -historians.) - - - PASSAMAQUODDY ISLANDS. - -(Author’s note: There was towards the end of the negotiations at Ghent -much and voluminous correspondence, mainly on the part of the British, -concerning the question involved in the Passamaquoddy Islands situation; -it was magnified, admittedly, out of proportion to the subject involved, -especially in view of the fact that the final disposition of these -fisheries was relegated to a civil commission to meet after peace. The -British, while conceding the relative insignificance of the islands, -maintained that a question of honor was involved which might “prove an -insuperable bar to the conclusion of peace at the present time.” In -reading the mass of British correspondence on the subject of these -islands one is forced to the conclusion that there was an underlying -purpose.) - - - AS TO WORDING IN MUTUAL RESTORATION CLAUSE. - -The American _projet_ of November 10 contained also the proposition that -all territory, places, and possessions “taken by either party from the -other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this -treaty, shall be restored.” - -The _projet_ returned on November 26 by the British Commissioners was -altered to read all territory, places, and possessions, “belonging to -either party and taken by the other during the war, or which may be -taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored.” - -The protocol of a conference of the American and British Commissioners, -held on December 1, contained the following statements: - -At a conference held this day, the American plenipotentiaries proposed -the following alterations in their _projet_, as amended by the British -plenipotentiaries: 1st—In article I, strike out the alteration -consisting of the words “belonging to,” and “taken by,” and preserve the -original reading, viz: “taken by either party from the other.” - -This alteration was objected to by the British plenipotentiaries, and, -after some discussion, reserved by them for the consideration of their -Government. (Ibid., pages 735, 742.) - -(Author’s note: The American Commissioners stated in a note December 14, -to the British Commissioners that they agreed to accept the British -proposal to “omit the words originally offered by them,” provided that -the Passamaquoddy Islands should alone be excepted from the mutual -restoration of territory. See American State Papers, Volume III, pages -743, 744, for full text of note. Also for text of letter from British -Commissioners to British Government as of December 13, see Photostat in -Library of Congress from Public Record Office, London—Foreign Office 5, -Vol. 102. Thus in the mutual restoration clause of the treaty the words -“all places, points, and ‘possessions’ whatsoever,” went in, without the -clarifying term as to “possessions” proposed by the British. Did the -British Government deem the clarification essential? Evidence, too -strong for disbelief, shows it did not. The secret expedition against -Louisiana was then well on its way, and expected to be in possession of -New Orleans any day, with the full set of civil officers, carried on -Admiral Cochran’s fleet, installed and in control. Evidence has been -given showing the anxiety of British officials, after the signing of the -treaty, as to its ratification by President Madison. If the British -plans against Louisiana had succeeded would President Madison have -ratified the treaty? That is a fair question for College debate.) - - - - - Transcriber’s Notes - - -—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook - is public-domain in the country of publication. - -—Silently corrected palpable typos; left non-standard spellings and - dialect unchanged. - -—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by - _underscores_. - - - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Battle of New Orleans, by Reau Estes Folk - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS *** - -***** This file should be named 52355-0.txt or 52355-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/2/3/5/52355/ - -Produced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/52355-0.zip b/old/52355-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index e2fb2c3..0000000 --- a/old/52355-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52355-h.zip b/old/52355-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b29c0ea..0000000 --- a/old/52355-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52355-h/52355-h.htm b/old/52355-h/52355-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index b4ad294..0000000 --- a/old/52355-h/52355-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2356 +0,0 @@ -<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> -<head> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> -<title>Battle of New Orleans, its Real Meaning, by Reau E. Folk: a Project Gutenberg eBook</title> -<meta name="author" content="Reau E. Folk" /> -<link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> -<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://dublincore.org/documents/1998/09/dces/" /> -<meta name="DC.Creator" content="Reau E. Folk" /> -<meta name="DC.Title" content="Battle of New Orleans: its Real Meaning" /> -<meta name="DC.Language" content="en" /> -<meta name="DC.Format" content="text/html" /> -<meta name="DC.Created" content="1935" /> -<meta name="pss.pubdate" content="1935" /> -<style type="text/css"> -large { font-size:125%; } -sc { font-variant:small-caps; font-style: normal; } - -/* == GLOBAL MARKUP == */ -body, table.twocol tr td { margin-left:2em; margin-right:2em; } /* BODY */ -.box { border-style:double; margin-bottom:2em; max-width:30em; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-top:2em; clear:both; } -.box p { margin-right:1em; margin-left:1em; } -.box dl { margin-right:1em; margin-left:1em; } -h1, h2, h5, h6, .titlepg p { text-align:center; clear:both; } /* HEADINGS */ -h2 { margin-top:1.5em; margin-bottom:1em; font-size:150%; } -h1 { margin-top:3em; } -div.box h1 { margin-top:1em; } -div.box h2 { margin-top:1em; } -h3 { margin-top:2.5em; text-align:center; font-size:100%; clear:both; } -h4, h5 { font-size:110%; text-align:center; clear:right; } -h6 { font-size:100%; } -h6.var { font-size:80%; font-style:normal; } -.titlepg { margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; border-style:double; clear:both; } -span.chaptertitle { font-style:normal; display:block; text-align:center; font-size:150%; } -.tblttl { text-align:center; } -.tblsttl { text-align:center; font-variant:small-caps; } - -pre sub.ms { width:4em; letter-spacing:1em; } -table.fmla { text-align:center; margin-top:0em; margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; } -table.inline, table.symbol { display: inline-table; vertical-align: middle; } -td.cola { text-align:left; vertical-align:100%; } -td.colb { text-align:justify; } - -p, blockquote, div.p, div.bq { text-align:justify; } /* PARAGRAPHS */ -div.p, div.bq { margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; } -blockquote, .bq { margin-left:1em; margin-right:0em; } -.verse { font-size:100%; } -p.indent {text-indent:2em; text-align:left; } -p.tb, p.tbcenter, verse.tb, blockquote.tb { margin-top:2em; } - -span.pb, div.pb, dt.pb, p.pb /* PAGE BREAKS */ -{ text-align:right; float:right; margin-right:0em; clear:right; } -div.pb { display:inline; } -.pb, dl.index dt.pb, dl.toc dt.pb, dl.tocl dt.pb { text-align:right; float:right; margin-left: 1.5em; - margin-top:.5em; margin-bottom:.5em; display:inline; text-indent:0; - font-size:80%; font-style:normal; font-weight:bold; - color:gray; border:1px solid gray;padding:1px 3px; } -div.index .pb { display:block; } -.bq div.pb, .bq span.pb { font-size:90%; margin-right:2em; } - -div.img, body a img {text-align:center; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:2em; clear:right; } - -sup, a.fn { font-size:75%; vertical-align:100%; line-height:50%; font-weight:normal; } - a.fnxx { text-decoration:none; border-style:solid; border-color:gray; border-width:1px; } -h3 a.fn { font-size:65%; } -h2 a.fn { font-size:50%; line-height:100%; } -sub { font-size:75%; } -.center, .tbcenter { text-align:center; clear:both; } /* TEXTUAL MARKUP */ -span.center { display:block; } -table.center { clear:both; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; } -table.center tr td.l {text-align:left; margin-left:0em; } -table.center tr td.t {text-align:left; text-indent:1em; } -table.center tr td.t2 {text-align:left; text-indent:2em; } -table.center tr td.r {text-align:right; } -table.center tr th {vertical-align:bottom; } -table.center tr td {vertical-align:top; } -table.inline, table.symbol { display: inline-table; vertical-align: middle; } - -p { clear:left; } -.small, .lsmall { font-size:90%; } -h2 .small { font-size:67%; } -.smaller { font-size:80%; } -.smallest { font-size:67%; } -.larger { font-size:150%; } -.large { font-size:125%; } -.xlarge { font-size:200%; line-height:60%; } -.xxlarge { font-size:200%; line-height:60%; } -.gs { letter-spacing:1em; } -.gs3 { letter-spacing:2em; } -.gslarge { letter-spacing:.3em; font-size:110%; } -.sc { font-variant:small-caps; font-style:normal; } -.unbold { font-weight:normal; } -.xo { position:relative; left:-.3em; } -.over, over { text-decoration: overline; display:inline; } -hr { width:20%; margin-left:30%; } -.jl { text-align:left; } -.jr { text-align:right; min-width:2em; display:inline-block; float:right; } -.jr1 { text-align:right; margin-right:2em; } -h1 .jr { margin-right:.5em; } -.ind1 { text-align:left; margin-left:2em; } -.u { text-decoration:underline; } -.hst { margin-left:2em; } -.hst2 { margin-left:4em; } -.rubric { color:red; } -.cnwhite { color:white; background-color:black; min-width:2em; display:inline-block; - text-align:center; font-weight:bold; font-family:sans-serif; } -.cwhite { color:white; background-color:black; text-align:center; font-weight:bold; - font-family:sans-serif; } -ul li { text-align:justify; } - -dd.t { text-align:left; margin-left: 5.5em; } -dl.toc { clear:both; margin-top:1em; } /* CONTENTS (.TOC) */ -.toc dt.center { text-align:center; clear:both; margin-top:3em; margin-bottom:1em;} -.toc dt { text-align:right; clear:left; margin-top:.5em; font-variant:small-caps; } -.toc dd { text-align:right; clear:both; } -.toc dd.ddt { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:4em; } -.toc dd.ddt2 { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:5em; } -.toc dd.ddt3 { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:6em; } -.toc dd.ddt4 { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:7em; } -.toc dd.ddt5 { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:8em; } -.toc dd.note { text-align:justify; clear:both; margin-left:5em; text-indent:-1em; margin-right:3em; } -.toc dt .xxxtest {width:17em; display:block; position:relative; left:4em; } -.toc dt a, -.toc dd a, -.toc dt span.left, -.toc dt span.lsmall, -.toc dd span.left { text-align:left; clear:right; float:left; } -.toc dt a span.cn { width:2.3em; text-align:right; margin-right:.7em; float:left; } -.toc dt.sc { text-align:right; clear:both; } -.toc dt.scl { text-align:left; clear:both; font-variant:small-caps; } -.toc dt.sct { text-align:right; clear:both; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:1em; } -.toc dt.jl { text-align:justify; clear:both; font-variant:normal; margin-left:3em; - margin-right:3em; text-indent:0em; margin-top:0; } -.toc dt.scc { text-align:center; clear:both; font-variant:small-caps; } -.toc dt span.lj { text-align:left; display:block; float:left; } -.toc dd.center { text-align:center; } -dd.tocsummary {text-align:justify; margin-right:2em; margin-left:2em; } -dd.center sc {display:block; text-align:center; } -/* BOX CELL */ -td.top { border-top:1px solid; width:.5em; height:.8em; } -td.bot { border-bottom:1px solid; width:.5em; height:.8em; } -td.rb { border:1px solid; border-left:none; width:.5em; height:.8em; } -td.lb { border:1px solid; border-right:none; width:.5em; height:.8em; } - -/* INDEX (.INDEX) */ -dl.index { clear:both; } -.index dd { margin-left:4em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left; } -.index dt { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left; } -.index dt.center {text-align:center; } - -.ab, .abl { -font-weight:bold; text-decoration:none; -border-style:solid; border-color:gray; border-width:1px; -margin-right:0px; margin-top:5px; display:inline-block; text-align:center; } -.ab { width:1em; } - - /* FOOTNOTE BLOCKS */ -div.notes p { margin-left:1em; text-indent:-1em; text-align:justify; } - -dl.undent dd { margin-left:3em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:justify; } -dl.undent dt { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:justify; } -dl.undent dd.t { margin-left:4em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:justify; } - /* POETRY LINE NUMBER */ -.lnum { text-align:right; float:right; margin-left:.5em; display:inline; } - -.hymn { text-align:left; } /* HYMN AND VERSE: HTML */ -.verse { text-align:left; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:0em; } -.versetb { text-align:left; margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:0em; } -.originc { text-align:center; } -.subttl { text-align:center; font-size:80%; } -.srcttl { text-align:center; font-size:80%; font-weight:bold; } -p.t0, p.l { margin-left:4em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.lb { margin-left:4em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.tw, div.tw, .tw { margin-left:1em; text-indent:-1em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t, div.t, .t { margin-left:5em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t2, div.t2, .t2 { margin-left:6em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t3, div.t3, .t3 { margin-left:7em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t4, div.t4, .t4 { margin-left:8em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t5, div.t5, .t5 { margin-left:9em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t6, div.t6, .t6 { margin-left:10em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t7, div.t7, .t7 { margin-left:11em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t8, div.t8, .t8 { margin-left:12em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t9, div.t9, .t9 { margin-left:13em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t10, div.t10,.t10 { margin-left:14em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t11, div.t11,.t11 { margin-left:15em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t12, div.t12,.t12 { margin-left:16em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t13, div.t13,.t13 { margin-left:17em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t14, div.t14,.t14 { margin-left:18em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.t15, div.t15,.t15 { margin-left:19em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; } -p.lr, div.lr, span.lr { display:block; margin-left:0em; margin-right:1em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:right; } -dt.lr { width:100%; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:1em; text-align:right; } -dl dt.lr a { text-align:left; clear:left; float:left; } - -.fnblock { margin-top:2em; } -.fndef { text-align:justify; margin-top:1.5em; margin-left:1.5em; text-indent:-1.5em; } -.fndef p.fncont, .fndef dl, div.fncont { margin-left:1.5em; text-indent:0em; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; text-align:justify; } -dl.catalog dd { font-style:italic; } -dl.catalog dt { margin-top:1em; } -.author { text-align:right; margin-top:0em; margin-bottom:0em; display:block; } - -dl.biblio dt { margin-top:.6em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:justify; clear:both; } -dl.biblio dt div { display:block; float:left; margin-left:-6em; width:6em; clear:both; } -dl.biblio dt.center { margin-left:0em; text-align:center; } -dl.biblio dd { margin-top:.3em; margin-left:3em; text-align:justify; font-size:90%; } -.clear { clear:both; } -p.book { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; } -p.review { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; font-size:80%; } -p.pcap { margin-left:auto; text-indent:0em; text-align:center; margin-top:0em; - font-weight:bold; font-size:90%; max-width:35em; margin-right:auto; } -p.pcapc { margin-left:4.7em; text-indent:0em; text-align:justify; } -span.pn { display:inline-block; width:4.7em; text-align:left; margin-left:0; text-indent:0; } -div.sidenote { max-width:50%; float:left; clear:left; - - margin-bottom:1em; font-weight:bold; font-size:90%; } - - -</style> -</head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Battle of New Orleans, by Reau Estes Folk - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Battle of New Orleans - Its Real Meaning - -Author: Reau Estes Folk - -Release Date: June 17, 2016 [EBook #52355] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS *** - - - - -Produced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - - - - - - -</pre> - -<div id="cover" class="img"> -<img id="coverpage" src="images/cover.jpg" alt="Battle of New Orleans: its Real Meaning" width="500" height="761" /> -</div> -<div class="box"> -<h1>BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS -<br />ITS REAL MEANING</h1> -<p class="tbcenter"><b><span class="large">Exposure of Untruth Being Taught Young America</span></b></p> -<p class="center"><i>Concerning the Second Most Important Military Event in the Life of the Republic.</i></p> -<p class="tbcenter"><i>By</i> <span class="sc">Reau E. Folk</span>, -<br /><i>Chairman Tennessee Commission of Research as to the True Value of the Victory at New Orleans.</i></p> -</div> -<div class="box"> -<h2 id="c1"><span class="u">DEDICATION</span></h2> -<p class="center"><i>This Volume Is Dedicated To:</i></p> -<p class="center"><i>The State of Tennessee, which authorized the Investigation;</i></p> -<p class="center"><i>The Ladies’ Hermitage Association, charged with primary duty of preserving the home of Andrew Jackson, whose military genius, courage, and patriotism saved the nation in the second War of Independence;</i></p> -<p class="center"><i>The Descendants of the Soldiers who fought at New Orleans, whose memory should always be cherished; and</i></p> -<p class="center"><i>The noble band of School Teachers everywhere, whose high impulse is to impart the truth.</i></p> -<p class="center"><br /><span class="jr"><i>REAU E. FOLK.</i></span></p> -<p><i>Nashville, Tenn.</i></p> -</div> -<p class="tbcenter"><span class="sc">Copyright, 1935, Reau E. Folk</span></p> -<p class="center">Published by Ladies’ Hermitage Association, Nashville, Tenn. -<br />Limited Edition -<br />Cullom & Ghertner, Publishers, Nashville, Tenn.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_5">5</div> -<h2 id="c2">COMMISSION REPORT</h2> -<p>Below is given report to the Governor of Tennessee by the author of -this volume as chairman of the authorized Tennessee Committee of Research. -Attached are letters of concurrence from two of his associate members. -The remaining member is out of the country. Documents have -been sent to him, but at the time of this printing sufficient time has not -elapsed to hear from him. In a later edition his comments will be given.</p> -<hr /> -<p class="center"><span class="small">NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE</span> -<br />To His Excellency, The Honorable Hill McAllister, -<br />Governor of Tennessee.</p> -<p>Sir:</p> -<p>The General Assembly of Tennessee of 1927 adopted the following joint resolution:</p> -<p>WHEREAS, the Battle of New Orleans, fought on January 8, 1815, is one of the -outstanding military events of American History; and,</p> -<p>WHEREAS, the memory of the great American victory achieved there, is especially -cherished by Tennesseans because of Andrew Jackson, and the other Tennesseans -who therein immortalized themselves; and,</p> -<p>WHEREAS, school histories, adopted for and taught in our schools, convey the -impression that the battle was a needless one in that it occurred fifteen days after the -Treaty of Peace had been signed at Ghent, Belgium, by the Commissioners representing -the United States and England; and,</p> -<p>WHEREAS, serious criticism is made that such textbooks present an erroneous -appraisement of the value of the battle, by omitting the reference to an essential fact, -to-wit: that England did not construe the Peace Treaty of Ghent as applicable to -Louisiana, for the reason that she held as invalid the title of the United States to that -Domain, conveyed by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803; and,</p> -<p>WHEREAS, it is of prime importance that our school children should receive -every essential truth from historical textbooks, and especially those textbooks placed -in the hands of Tennessee students should portray in its true significance the Battle of -New Orleans in which the ancestors of so many were engaged; now,</p> -<p>THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, -that the Governor be, and is hereby empowered and authorized, to appoint -five, or in discretion seven, persons of known historical knowledge and research, who -shall constitute a Commission, charged with the duty of carefully examining the -authorities, touching the true value of the Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, -1815; and,</p> -<p>Said Commission shall incorporate its conclusions and recommendations in a -report to the Governor who shall transmit the same to the Legislature.</p> -<p>Under the above resolution the following were appointed: Reau E. Folk, Chairman; -John Trotwood Moore; John H. DeWitt; Claude G. Bowers; John S. Kendall.</p> -<p>The chairman, by reason of partial business retirement, has been able to devote -himself assiduously to the research work involved. The result of his research, compiled -into a small volume, accompanies this report.</p> -<p>At the outset the writer wishes to say he has had no opportunity for conference -with the full Commission, but has had the benefit of consultation with Messrs. Moore -and DeWitt, both of whom were very co-operative. The first named, the late John -Trotwood Moore, State Historian, condensed his conclusion into a sentence, which is -here given because he is no longer with us to speak for himself. He said: “The Battle -of New Orleans saved the Louisiana Purchase, or another war with England.” Judge -<span class="pb" id="Page_6">6</span> -John H. DeWitt, President of the Tennessee Historical Society, has given much -valuable and sympathetic aid.</p> -<p>The small volume herewith submitted gives exact quotations concerning the Battle -of New Orleans from all histories under adoption as textbooks for the public schools -of Tennessee. All of these present the same viewpoint, to-wit: that the battle was an -unnecessary one; that it was fought after peace had been made. These researches -show conclusively that all these books are in error. The battle was NOT fought -after peace.</p> -<p>These researches have uncovered a startling, astounding fact—startling and -astounding because that fact has been consistently ignored or overlooked by historians. -That fact appears in the wording of the Ghent Treaty itself, which says in plain -language that peace shall be effective when the treaty shall have been ratified by both -sides! It was ratified by the United States February 17, 1815, forty days after the -Battle of New Orleans!</p> -<p>Hence it must be patent to all that the statement, that the battle occurred after -peace made so persistently by historians, is an obvious untruth, based on false assumption -of fact. The wording of the treaty, appearing in the volume herewith, has been -verified from the treaty itself on file in the State Department at Washington.</p> -<p>If the issue of the battle had been different, it is a matter for fair speculation as -to whether or not the treaty would have been ratified by the United States. The -Administration would have been torn between the ominous threats of the northeastern -states on the one hand, and on the other by British occupancy of the vast territory -west of the Mississippi River, with civil government set up. Happily this grave -situation was averted by the great victory, news of which reached Washington ten days -before the treaty.</p> -<p>In the volume herewith there is presented well authenticated evidence leading to -the irresistable deduction that it was England’s purpose after capturing to retain the -great Louisiana Domain, on the ground of the invalidity of the U. S. title acquired -from Napoleon in 1803. Among other indications of England’s attitude there are -exhibited copies of records during the negotiations at Ghent taken from the archives -of the State Department at Washington.</p> -<p>The chairman, as the compiler of the volume referred to, hopes it will be carefully -read by all interested in truth of history, not only in Tennessee, but in the nation.</p> -<p>The writer, in obedience to the Legislative resolution under which he was appointed, -herewith asks leave to report as his findings as to the true value of the Battle of New -Orleans the following:</p> -<p>1st: It did not occur after peace as erroneously is stated by school and other -histories; it occurred during a state of war between the United States and England;</p> -<p>2nd: It was a necessary battle, made so by the aggressions of England; in -addition to its national necessity, it was as necessary as would be the defense by a -citizen of his home and family from marauders;</p> -<p>3rd: It was a major military event in the life of the Republic, second only to -Yorktown;</p> -<p>4th: It saved the Louisiana Purchase, or prolongation of existing war, or another -war with England; or acquiescense in the Mississippi River as our western boundary;</p> -<p>5th: It established wholesome respect of U. S. sovereignty by Great Britain, -marking the last armed conflict between these two powers, between which a solid -peace has existed ever since;</p> -<p>6th: It created profound impression throughout the world, with consequent greater -respect and security of the Republic among her sister nations;</p> -<p>7th: It restored national self respect, then at its lowest ebb.</p> -<p>In submitting the result of this research the writer earnestly recommends to the -Governor and the General Assembly that proper and decisive steps be taken to the end -<span class="pb" id="Page_7">7</span> -that our school children may be taught the truth as to the value of the great victory in -which Tennesseans of another age played a leading part, and which contributed so -much to the destinies of the nation.</p> -<p><span class="center">Respectfully,</span> -<span class="lr"><span class="sc">Reau E. Folk</span>, <i>Chairman</i>,</span> -<span class="lr"><i>Authorized Commission of Research as to Value of Battle of New Orleans.</i></span></p> -<hr /> -<p><span class="lr">December 12, 1934.</span></p> -<p>My Dear Mr. Folk:</p> -<p>I have carefully read and considered the report which you, as Chairman of the -Commission appointed in 1927 to examine the authorities as to the true value of the -Battle of New Orleans, are about to make to the Governor of Tennessee. Hitherto -I have had the privilege of conferring with you from time to time concerning the -important historical question involved in the investigation.</p> -<p>I have also read carefully the treatise prepared by you and which accompanies -your report to the Governor. It shows very thorough and judicious investigation, and -in my opinion very sound conclusions.</p> -<p>I fully concur with you in the conclusions stated in your report, as well as the -reasons therefor which you have therein set forth in lucid statement.</p> -<p>I do trust that this valuable work which you have done will be properly appreciated, -and that the errors which have so persistently appeared in the histories, particularly -the school histories, will be duly corrected, so that the fallacy that the -Battle of New Orleans was a useless battle and fought after the treaty of peace, will -no longer be accepted by anybody, and that truth will be known by all.</p> -<p><span class="center">Yours very truly,</span> -<span class="lr"><span class="sc">John H. DeWitt</span>.</span></p> -<p>D-R</p> -<hr /> -<p><span class="lr">Tulane University,</span> -<span class="lr">New Orleans, La.,</span> -<span class="lr">December 22, 1934.</span></p> -<p>My Dear Mr. Folk:</p> -<p>I have read with attention your excellent report on the Battle of New Orleans, -to be submitted to the Governor of Tennessee, in conjunction with the report of our -commission on the subject. I have ventured to indicate by question marks in two or -three places phrases or statements which I think could be changed to advantage. -These, however, are merely questions of verbiage, not of fact. In point of fact, I -think you have made a most interesting and important assemblage of the essential -points to be considered in connection with the Battle of New Orleans, and have shown -conclusively that the opinion so frequently expressed by historians, that the battle -was unnecessary, is a sentimental inaccuracy which ought to be corrected. You have -done a useful and important piece of work, and I congratulate you upon its completion.</p> -<p>May I beg you to be good enough to favor me with a copy when the work is -printed? I should like to prepare a review of it for one of our local newspapers.</p> -<p><span class="center">Yours very truly,</span> -<span class="lr"><span class="sc">John S. Kendall</span>.</span></p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_8">8</div> -<h2 id="c3"><i>Details of Research</i></h2> -<div class="box"> -<p class="center"><span class="large"><b>Crusade Sword.</b></span></p> -<p class="center"><span class="sc">Voltaire, French Cynic, Is Quoted as Saying That History Is Made Up of Lies Agreed Upon. Here Is One Almost Agreed Upon, Now Overhauled and Exposed.</span></p> -</div> -<div class="pb" id="Page_10">10</div> -<h3><span class="sc">Louisiana Domain.</span></h3> -<p>The Louisiana spoken of in this volume refers to -the great Louisiana Domain purchased by President -Jefferson from France in 1803. That original Domain -now comprehends all or most of sixteen states, -as follows: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, -Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, -Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South -Dakota, Washington and Wyoming.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_11">11</div> -<h2 id="c4"><span class="small">CHAPTER I.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">An Interview Containing an Outline.</span></h2> -<p>It was the 8th of January. I sat down for lunch at a small table in -a Nashville hotel. Presently the head waiter conducted to a seat opposite -me a young man, seemingly about 22 years of age. He was a handsome, -wholesome looking young man, and had an air of self-reliance. He -impressed me at first sight as being a typical young American; at any -rate he was decidedly attractive to the narrator, whose grey head could -but reveal his advanced years.</p> -<p>While awaiting the lunches, a casual remark about the weather opened -conversation. A waiter brought an afternoon paper. On the front page -was a picture of Andrew Jackson, and big headlines over accounts of -celebrations in memory of the victory at New Orleans in 1815.</p> -<p>The young man, with the superiority of youthful knowledge, exclaimed:</p> -<p>“Why all this to-do about a battle which was a needless one? It was -a brilliant victory, and salved American pride at the time; but that is -now four generations in the past. We should not go on salving our pride -over a useless victory, and especially when it was over a country now our -strong and perpetual friend. We don’t need anything to boost our -pride any more. We are now the greatest nation on earth.”</p> -<p>While responding to the fervor in the young man’s last sentence, I -felt a kind of joy in his prelude, which I knew was based on history that -I knew to be false.</p> -<p>In brief explanation, let me say that for some years, I have been -engaged in research work as to the true value of the battle of New -Orleans, resulting in the conviction that the current appraisal in school -histories is entirely erroneous. I therefore welcomed the opportunity -to develop the truth to this typical young American. I decided upon -the gradual approach rather than a frontal attack, which might result in -amour propre resentment.</p> -<p>I said in a casual tone:</p> -<p>“Permit me to take issue with you. Suppose I should tell you that -the Battle of New Orleans was not a needless battle; that it was, in fact, -the second most important military event in the life of our republic? -Suppose I should say to you that it was not fought after peace, but during -war?”</p> -<p>The young man looked at me, first with a show of impatience, and -then with a tolerant air.</p> -<p>“My only answer,” he returned, “is that you haven’t read our modern -histories. I have. The Peace Treaty of Ghent was signed Christmas -Eve, 1814. Sailing vessels were the quickest means of communication -<span class="pb" id="Page_12">12</span> -at that time, and so it was more than six weeks before the news reached -our people. During that interim the Battle of New Orleans was fought. -So you see it was quite useless except as a contribution to American -pride.”</p> -<p>“Have you read that treaty?” I asked.</p> -<p>“Sure,” he responded, “that is, I have read several reliable digests. -They all say the treaty was silent as to Impressment and Orders in -Council, which caused our declaration of war, and that it amounted to -a simple agreement to stop fighting and go back to the status before the -war.”</p> -<p>As I was calculating on my next move the young man resumed:</p> -<p>“We had a debate at school last year on the question, ‘Resolved, that -the United States won the War of 1812.’ I took the ground that it was -a draw, and my side won. So you can see that I am well posted on -that war.”</p> -<p>He had a polite, patronizing air, and this decided me upon a direct -blow.</p> -<p>“I thank you,” said I; “I have also closely studied the events of this -War of 1812. I have read some more or less superficial comments on the -Peace Treaty of Ghent. I have also read the Treaty itself, word by word. -In precise specific terms, that document stipulated that it was not to be -effective until ratified by both sides.”</p> -<p>The young man gave an inquiring look, and commented:</p> -<p>“That of course is important, if true.”</p> -<p>“It is true,” I replied. “You can verify the fact in fifteen minutes. -A few blocks from where we sit is a Carnegie Library in which you can -find a volume containing various treaties of the United States. The -Treaty of Ghent is among them. It is called the Treaty of Amity.”</p> -<p>“May I ask who you are?” questioned the young man, with a changed -and puzzled mien.</p> -<p>“I am a member of the Committee appointed by the State to make -research into the real value of the Battle of New Orleans.”</p> -<p>“I am delighted to know you,” said the young man. “I love to discuss -history, which reveals the foundation of our existing social structure. -There are some questions I would like to ask of you. First, since the -Treaty was eventually ratified, aren’t our historians while technically -wrong, in saying the Battle of New Orleans occurred after Peace, and -was a useless battle, really in the right, for the reason that the battle really -had no effect upon the Peace Treaty?”</p> -<p>“It is true,” I replied, “the Treaty adopted at Ghent, Dec. 24, 1814, -was ratified soon after its reception in Washington, and promulgated the -next day, Feb. 18, 1815. That was after the news of the victory at New -Orleans had reached Washington.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_13">13</div> -<p>“But suppose the result at New Orleans had been different, would -President Madison have signed the Treaty?</p> -<p>“That is a real question for college debate. It is a question calculated -to bring sharply to the student the picture of the distracted condition -of our country at the time. By signing the treaty Madison would -have appeased the New England section, then in hostile and threatening -attitude, but at the same time would have faced the surrender of the territory -west of the Mississippi for all time, or faced future negotiation or war. -By refusing to sign, the President would have prolonged the war with -its uncertainties. At the same time he would have confronted possible -disunion through the open disaffection of the northeastern states. The -English government construed the disaffection as a threat of secession.</p> -<p>“It was planned by that calculating government, as evidence shows, -to inveigle New England into a separate treaty in case after British -capture and occupation of New Orleans, Madison should refuse to ratify -the Ghent treaty. Thus, if the issue in that New Orleans affair had been -different, President Madison would have faced danger of disunion, on -one side or the other.</p> -<p>“It would be hard to conceive of a graver situation. All this was -averted, and gloriously averted, by the victory at New Orleans, the news -of which caused the treaty to be joyfully ratified.”</p> -<p>“Haven’t you overdrawn the picture?” asked the young man. “Isn’t -it a fact that the treaty provided for the return of all territory taken -during the war, so that, if the English had captured New Orleans they -would have given it up?”</p> -<p>“My dear young friend,” I replied, “I have not overdrawn the picture. -The mutual restoration clause provided that all territory, places -and possessions, taken by either, were to be returned at effective peace. -Bear in mind that England had never conceded the validity of our title -to the Louisiana Domain, and so if the carefully planned design to capture -it had been successful, England was in position to hold that she did not -regard it as a legal possession of the United States, and as not subject to -return under the Peace Treaty. It is a violence to credibility to suppose -that England, after finally dispatching the big expedition against Louisiana, -would within a few weeks thereafter, agree to a peace treaty, recalling -her troops from an anticipated successful conquest. In the light of -present knowledge, the peace proceedings show a studied purpose to -protect the expedition sent out to capture New Orleans. The supposition, -advanced by many historians, that if England had captured New Orleans, -she would have given it up, is a reflection upon the intelligence of the -English government of that period, and really, ascribes to that government -egregious asininity. Now, with all of her blunders, England has -never been asinine.”</p> -<p>The young man listened intently, gave an inhaled “Oh,” and then -added:</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_14">14</div> -<p>“I begin to see; but there are some questions I want to ask. First, -when and why and how did this error get in history?”</p> -<p>“A natural inquiry,” I responded. “I cannot definitely answer, nor -is a definite answer vital. However, I will give one conjecture; Jackson -became a national figure as a result of the Battle of New Orleans. While -acclaimed by the masses, Jackson had many bitter enemies, some of them -in the history writing class. Prejudice may have caused disparagement -of the importance of the event upon which his national fame is founded. -But all that is of small importance beside the establishment of the actual -truth, that the battle was not fought after peace, but that it was necessary -to prevent England’s conquest of Louisiana. Thus, as I have said before, -the Battle was the second most important military event in the life of the -Republic.”</p> -<p>“Now my other questions,” said the young man; “why has such an -error been allowed to go unchallenged all these generations?”</p> -<p>“Another natural question,” I answered. “It is a question that must -come to every mind in approaching this matter of clarification. I am -not able to answer this question definitely, just as I was not able to answer -your other question with any degree of certainty. The answer is not -vital, except from the standpoint of the problem involved, of overcoming -the inertia of a long-enthroned lie. My conjecture is that the false appraisal -began when civil upheaval was imminent, and when most people -were thinking only of the present—a state of mind which was continued -for a long time. So the viewpoint of prejudice, unopposed, gradually -crept into accepted history. There have been, and are, students of history -adhering to the great fact that the Battle of New Orleans saved the -Louisiana purchase, or another war with England. But school histories -continue to purvey the false viewpoint to the youth of the land. But -‘truth is mighty and will prevail,’ and the time has now come.”</p> -<p>At this point a bell boy brought me a card, and I arose to bid goodbye -to my young friend, saying;</p> -<p>“They have come for me, to go to the Hermitage for the exercises -being held there today.”</p> -<p>The young man said:</p> -<p>“I wish it were so you could take me.”</p> -<p>I arranged to do so, very much pleased at this change in his attitude.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_15">15</div> -<h2 id="c5"><span class="small">CHAPTER II.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Containing a High Commission and an Indictment.</span></h2> -<p>There is no nobler calling than that of the school teachers of America, -who are ministering to the instruction and development of the future -citizens and leaders of the Republic. These teachers are bound to be -deeply concerned when they find that through school histories furnished -them, they have been imparting a falsehood about an important event -in United States history—the Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, -1815. These school histories minimize the value of the battle, describing -it as needless, because fought after peace, when as a fact, the battle was -not fought after peace, and the victory, in fact, prevented a carefully -planned conquest of the then lately acquired Louisiana Domain, with all -the attendant, untoward complications, another war being one of them.</p> -<p>It is the purpose of this volume to show by reliable authorities, the -truth as to the value of this battle.</p> -<p>History, as is well known, is honey-combed with lies, originally projected -either in ignorance, prejudice or adulation. We are always fortunate -if able to arrest and correct one before too late.</p> -<p>The Legislature of Tennessee, at its session of 1927, adopted the following -resolution:</p> -<p>“WHEREAS, the Battle of New Orleans, fought on January 8, 1815, -is one of the outstanding military events of American History; and,</p> -<p>“WHEREAS, the memory of the great American victory achieved -there, is especially cherished by Tennesseans because of Andrew Jackson, -and the other Tennesseans who therein immortalized themselves; and,</p> -<p>“WHEREAS, school histories, adopted for and taught in our schools, -convey the impression that the battle was a needless one in that it occurred -fifteen days after the treaty of Peace had been signed at Ghent, Belgium, -by the Commissioners representing the United States and England; and,</p> -<p>“WHEREAS, serious criticism is made that such textbooks present -an erroneous appraisement of the value of the battle, by omitting the -reference to an essential fact, to-wit: that England did not construe the -Peace Treaty of Ghent as applicable to Louisiana, for the reason that she -held as invalid the title of the United States to that Domain, conveyed -by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803; and,</p> -<p>“WHEREAS, it is of prime importance that our school children should -receive every essential truth from historical textbooks, and especially those -textbooks placed in the hands of Tennessee students should portray in -its true significance the battle of New Orleans in which the ancestors -of so many were engaged; Now,</p> -<p>“THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives -<span class="pb" id="Page_16">16</span> -concurring, that the Governor be, and is hereby empowered -and authorized, to appoint five, or in his discretion seven, persons of known -historical knowledge and research, who shall constitute a Commission, -charged with the duty of carefully examining the authorities, touching -the true value of the Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, 1815; and,</p> -<p>“Said Commission shall incorporate its conclusions and recommendations -in a report to the Governor who shall transmit the same to the Legislature.”</p> -<p>The present writer, who was appointed a member of the authorized -Committee, has been engaged in making research into the matter involved, -and has found facts, not hard of access, which should, and will, when -understood, force a radical revision of school histories in the version they -present as to the value of the New Orleans victory.</p> -<p>Other members of the Commission appointed by the Governor were: -John H. DeWitt, of Nashville, Judge of the Tennessee Court of Appeals -and president of the Tennessee Historical Society; John Trotwood Moore, -of Nashville, State Librarian and historian; Claude G. Bowers, New -York, author, historian, and editor—now ambassador to Spain; John S. -Kendall, of New Orleans, historian and professor in Tulane University.</p> -<p>It is the purpose of the writer, after submission for comment to his -distinguished fellow Committeemen, to make this volume the basis of -report to the Governor of Tennessee for transmission to the Legislature.</p> -<p>In order to present, in as simple a way as possible, the case, or the -indictment, for such it is, actual and authenticated excerpts are given -herewith from all the American histories prescribed for Tennessee Public -Schools by the State Text Book Commission.</p> -<p>These extracts were obtained from the office of the Secretary of State, -where under statute, copies of all adopted text books are kept.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_17">17</div> -<h2 id="c6"><span class="small">CHAPTER III.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">What School Histories Teach.</span></h2> -<p>Here are the extracts from the Tennessee authorized school Histories:</p> -<p>School History of Tennessee: S. E. Scates, page 225:</p> -<p>“Though the battle resulted in great victory for the Americans, it -was sad indeed that so many brave men lost their lives at New Orleans -quite uselessly. At Ghent, Belgium, a treaty of peace for the war of -1812 had been signed Christmas Eve, 1814. Because messages travelled -so slowly, by sailing vessels, news of peace did not reach New Orleans -until after the fighting had taken place.”</p> -<hr /> -<p>A History of American Government and Culture: Harold Rugg, -page 192:</p> -<p>“Two weeks after the Treaty of Peace had been signed, another battle -was fought. This may seem strange to you, but in those days transportation -and communication was so slow that news of the making of peace -reached the country long after it had happened.”</p> -<hr /> -<p>History of the United States: Beard & Beard, page 238:</p> -<p>“The Treaty of Peace. Both countries were in truth sick of a war -that offered neither glory nor profit. So after an exchange of notes they -sent representatives to Ghent to discuss a settlement. Long negotiations -were finally ended by an agreement on Christmas Eve, 1814, a few days -before Jackson’s victory at New Orleans. When the treaty reached -America the people were surprised to find it said nothing about the -seizure of American sailors, the destruction of American trade, the searching -for American ships, or the support of Indians on the frontier. Nevertheless, -we are told, the public ‘passed from gloom to glory’ on the -arrival of the news of peace. Bells were rung; schools were closed; flags -were displayed; and many a rousing toast was drunk in taverns and -private homes. The rejoicing could continue. With Napoleon definitely -beaten at Waterloo in June, 1815, Great Britain had no more need to -impress sailors, search ships, and seize American goods bound to the -Continent. Once more the terrible sea power sank into the background -and the ocean was again white with the sails of merchantmen.”</p> -<hr /> -<p>History of the American People: Latane, page 284:</p> -<p>“Jackson’s brilliant victory at the Battle of New Orleans caused great -rejoicing throughout the country, but it did not affect the outcome of the -war, for the treaty of peace had been signed at Ghent two weeks before -it was fought. Its effect on the course of American history, however, was -<span class="pb" id="Page_18">18</span> -far-reaching, for it brought the West into greater prominence and made -Andrew Jackson the military hero and political leader of that section.”</p> -<hr /> -<p>A History of the People of the United States: Waddy Thompson, -page 220:</p> -<p>“Treaty of Peace; Results of the War: The great victory of New -Orleans was won after peace had been made. A treaty had been signed -at Ghent, Belgium, on December 24, 1814. But as only sailing vessels -then crossed the ocean, and as about six weeks were required for the -voyage, news of peace did not reach America until February, 1815.”</p> -<hr /> -<p>First Book in United States History: Waddy Thompson, page 253:</p> -<p>“A Victory after Peace: Brilliant as was the victory at New Orleans, -it was won after peace had been made between the United States and -Great Britain. Both sides having become tired of the War, a treaty -of peace was signed in Belgium in December, 1814; while the Battle of -New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815. Steamboats did not then -cross the Ocean, and no electric cable connected America with Europe, so -news of the treaty did not reach America until a month after the Battle -of New Orleans.”</p> -<hr /> -<p>The American People: Muzzey, page 218:</p> -<p>“Jackson, henceforth, the ‘Hero of New Orleans’ was rewarded in the -following years by the command against the Indians of Florida (1817), -the governorship of Florida territory (1821); a seat in the United States -Senate (1823), and the Presidency of the United States (1829). If the -Atlantic cable had existed in 1814, it would have brought the news of -the treaty of peace in time to turn Pakenham’s expedition back from the -Mississippi, to prevent the bloodiest battle that had ever been fought on -American soil, and perhaps to keep from the pages of American history -the administration of the most masterful of our Presidents between Washington -and Lincoln.”</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_19">19</div> -<h2 id="c7"><span class="small">CHAPTER IV.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Falsehood Shown by the Records.</span></h2> -<p>The unanimity of view presented by these extracts from Tennessee -adopted histories, gives justification for the assumption that the same view -obtains throughout the United States. In partial extenuation of school -historians and of Textbook Commissions, it may be said that they have -followed the lead of most generally recognized historians. But any trusting -follower of the pack leaders could have ascertained, without much -trouble, that the battle of New Orleans was NOT fought after peace. -It occurred fifteen days after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed by -the Commissioners of the two interested nations, but expressly, by the -terms of that treaty, it was not to be effective until ratified by both sides -and ratification exchanged in Washington.</p> -<p>Let us go to specific quotations. The Peace Treaty of Ghent, dated -December 24, 1814, contained, as its first sentence, the following words: -“All hostilities, both by sea and by land shall cease as soon as this treaty -shall be ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned.”</p> -<p>Article XI of the Treaty reads: “This Treaty, when the same shall -be ratified on both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting -parties, and the ratification mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both -parties; and the ratification shall be exchanged at Washington, in the -space of four months from this date, or sooner if practicable.”</p> -<p>Further, the record shows that ratification of the Treaty was advised -by the United States Senate, February 16, 1815; that it was ratified February -17; and ratification exchanged the same day, and that it was promulgated -February 18th.</p> -<p>The Treaty of Ghent, called the Treaty of Amity, is preserved, of -course, among American State papers. A copy may be found in a public -library in a volume devoted to Treaties, Agreements, Etc. between the -U. S. A. and other Powers, Compiled by W. M. Maloy, Under Resolution -of U. S. Senate of Jan. 18, 1909.</p> -<p>A lawyer friend of the writer, with whom he discussed the situation, -suggested that while manifestly in error in representing the Battle as -having been fought after peace, that a plea in abatement might be offered -for the historians to the effect that the treaty was subsequently ratified -as written; that the Battle of New Orleans had no effect upon the Treaty; -that it further was needless because if its issue had been different the -British under the mutual restoration clause of the Ghent Treaty would, -upon promulgation of the Treaty, have evacuated New Orleans and -Louisiana.</p> -<p>That viewpoint is entitled to such consideration as should be given -<span class="pb" id="Page_20">20</span> -any viewpoint based solely on assumption, but it and all such viewpoints -must be subjected to acid judgment based on co-related facts.</p> -<p>As to the first point above made, it is a matter of record that the -treaty was ratified quickly after reaching Washington; it is also a matter -of record that the news of the great American victory at New Orleans -reached the Capitol ten days before. As to the second point, that the -battle had no effect upon the treaty, a wide range of discussion, based -on records, is opened, which will be presented later.</p> -<p>As to the third point, that the battle was needless because, if successful, -the British would have evacuated New Orleans and Louisiana upon promulgation -of the Peace Treaty, it may be stated here that the records -which will be presently laid before the reader give decided negation to -that assumption.</p> -<p>The writer boldly avers, as supported truth, that the British Government, -never having acknowledged the validity of the title of the United -States to Louisiana, secretly dispatched the big expedition against New -Orleans with one hand, while directing peace negotiations with the other; -that it was the British purpose to seize and hold Louisiana, nominally -in the name of Spain; and that the British Government would never have -agreed to a peace treaty, which did not contain a clause, no matter how -subtly garbed, that would not give justification to the British retention -of Louisiana.</p> -<p>However, before going into the matter of citations of authorities and -records, it is due to the reader to present something of the English attitude -at the time, so that he may see more clearly and with more understanding -its actions. That can best be done by brief picture of the background -of that period.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_21">21</div> -<h2 id="c8"><span class="small">CHAPTER V.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Background—Louisiana.</span></h2> -<p>The great domain, christened Louisiana, was taken over by La Salle -in 1682, in the name of France. It remained under French dominion -until 1763, when, as a result of French-English wars, France retired from -the New World. It seemed inevitable that Louisiana, great unexplored -trans-river territory, would fall into English hands. But France ceded -Louisiana to Spain, then still a world power. In 1800 Napoleon Bonaparte -caused Spain to re-cede Louisiana to France. In 1803 Bonaparte -sold Louisiana to the United States. He was about to engage in war -with England, and historians generally agree that the sale to United -States was made because he recognized the difficulty of defending the -remote territory against the English Navy. The British Encyclopedia -says the sale was made to keep Louisiana from falling into English hands. -Thus it appears, that England was justified in feeling that Louisiana for -the second time had been maneuvered from her ownership.</p> -<p>References without number may be given from histories covering that -period. The writer has before him James G. Blaine’s “Twenty Years -in Congress,” which in Chapter 1 of the first volume (pages 3 to 13) -deals comprehensively with the relation of the Louisiana purchase to the -early days of the Republic. Some key quotations are here presented: -“She (France) in 1763, now gave up Canada and Cape Breton, acknowledged -the sovereignty of Great Britain in the original thirteen colonies -as extending to the Mississippi, and, by a separate treaty, surrendered -Louisiana on the west side of the Mississippi, with New Orleans on the -east side, to Spain. She (Spain) continued in possession of Louisiana -until the year 1800, when Bonaparte concluded a Treaty ..., by -which the entire territory was retroceded to France.”</p> -<p>Again, Mr. Blaine says: “Fearing that in the threatening conflict -(1803) England, by her superior Naval force, would deprive him of his -newly acquired colonial empire, and greatly enhance her own prestige -by securing all the American possessions, which France had owned prior -to 1763, Bonaparte, by a dash in diplomacy, as quick and as brilliant -as his tactics on the field of battle, placed Louisiana beyond the reach of -the British power. In a tone of vehemence and passion he said: ‘I know -the full value of Louisiana. A few lines of a treaty have restored it to -me, and now I must expect to lose it. The English expect to take possession -of it, and it is thus they will begin the war. They have already -twenty ships of the line in the Gulf of Mexico. The conquest of Louisiana -will be easy. I have not a moment to lose in putting it out of their reach. -The English have successively taken from France the Canadas, Cape -<span class="pb" id="Page_22">22</span> -Breton, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the richest portion of Asia. -But they shall not have the Mississippi, which they covet.’”</p> -<p>Again quoting from Blaine: “England’s acquisition of Louisiana -would have proved in the highest degree embarrassing, if not disastrous -to the Union. No colonial acquisition ever made by her on any continent -has been so profitable to her commerce, and so strengthening to her military -position, as that of Louisiana would have proved. The fact was -clearly seen by Bonaparte when he hastily made the treaty ceding it to -the United States.”</p> -<p>Again Blaine: “The conflict of arms (War of 1812) did not occur -until nine years after; and it is a curious and not unimportant fact, that -the most notable defeat of the British troops in the second war of independence, -as the struggle of 1812 has been well named, occurred on the -soil of the territory for whose protection the original precaution had been -taken by Jefferson.”</p> -<p>The reader will find all of the chapter referred to very interesting -as indeed will be any chapter devoted to our sudden acquisition of the -immense domain called Louisiana.</p> -<p>The striking sentences quoted above serve to emphasize the fact that -it would not have been unnatural for England to have felt resentment -at this second maneuvering of a vast territory from her grasp. Some -historians have expressed surprise that England did not at once undertake -to take Louisiana, the United States notwithstanding. That would -have meant armed conflict with America at a time of the war in Europe. -Besides, and this is a deduction of the present writer, such a course would -have placed upon England the onus before the world of a war of conquest -in the western continent. So England waited.</p> -<p>An additional viewpoint is here presented: In the history of the -United States of America, by Henry W. Elson, under the caption -“Louisiana” (Vol. 2, page 230) appears the following paragraph (page -233): “Actual possession soon placed our title to Louisiana beyond dispute; -but strictly speaking, the sale was not legal. Napoleon had agreed -to convey to Spain a dukedom on the Arno River, for the son-in-law -of the Spanish King, in payment for Louisiana; but the price was never -paid. The treaty of Ildefonso also stipulated that France should never -cede the territory to any foreign power; but Napoleon disregarded this. -In point of fact, France, therefore, did not own Louisiana; and even if -she had owned it, the cession, according to the French Constitution, could -not be made without the consent of the Chamber of Deputies, and this -the First Consul never obtained and never sought. The French people -were astonished at this action of their ruler; but he was a master, and -they were powerless. Far sadder was the wail from Spain. The Spanish -Government protested briefly, pathetically; but its voice was not heard.”</p> -<p>From the above quotation the reader can appreciate England’s attitude, -<span class="pb" id="Page_23">23</span> -as to the legality of the United States’ title to Louisiana, maintained -until January 8, 1815, when the highest law known to nations -dissipated that attitude forever.</p> -<p>There are doubtless many today, as we bask in the enjoyment of National -security and other national blessings, who do not appreciate the -vastness, the importance, of the Louisiana domain, the acquisition of which -Dr. Sloane of Princeton says translated our young republic into a world -power. According to an early authority the domain comprised 829,987 -square miles, and by later authority over a million square miles. In the -Louisiana Purchase territory are today comprehended the following -states: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, -Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South -Dakota, Washington and Wyoming.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_24">24</div> -<h2 id="c9"><span class="small">CHAPTER VI.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Background—Impressment.</span></h2> -<p>The impressment policy of the English Government applied to the -new American country, was very galling. Under that policy American -ships were stopped on the high seas, and seamen taken from them under -guise of being British deserters. Many good Americans were forced into -British service. The young victim country protested. In 1801 the impressment -practice fell off and seemingly was abandoned. (See Elson’s -History of the U. S., pages 246 to 252, Vol. 2.) A quotation is given -from Elson, page 247, Vol. 2: “This (impressment) practice had fallen -into the background during the short season of peace between France -and England, that ended in 1803, but with the renewal of the war it -had been revived with alarming vigor.”</p> -<p>Whether that “alarming vigor” was due entirely to war exigencies -of recruiting its Navy, or whether the British Government designed it -as a provocation to the young western Republic, to take the onus of declaring -war, under guise of which the coveted floating title to Louisiana -could be appropriated, is a matter for deduction, not appearing of record.</p> -<p>At any rate, the impressment practice re-aroused resentment in the -young republic, and that resentment found chief expression in the then -Southwest, resulting under the leadership of that section and over the -opposition of the New England States, or rather of that of the assertive -Federalists therein, in a declaration of war against England, on the -ground of the degradation of our sovereignty.</p> -<p>It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss the War of 1812, except -as its events may relate to his mission, that of correcting falsehood and -error in the historical books adopted as textbooks for the school children -of America.</p> -<p>The War of 1812 was heralded as a mistake by the Federalists, opponents -of the then administration. While the incipient Navy gave a brilliant -account of itself, justifying the proud boast that man for man and -gun for gun, the U. S. Navy was the equal of anything afloat, for two -and a half years the record shows that land events in the main were untoward, -climaxed by the capture, and sacking and burning of the public -buildings, of the National Capital in August, 1814, and thus the Federal -Press offensively took the “I-told-you-so” attitude.</p> -<p>Early in the war the Emperor of Russia extended his good offices as -mediator. The United States Government accepted the offer, being earnestly -desirous of honorable peace, and having nothing to conceal from -neutral investigation. But the English government declined the Russian -offer, indicating that it preferred to treat direct. Later as a result of -British invitation, a Peace Commission met at Ghent, Belgium.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_25">25</div> -<h2 id="c10"><span class="small">CHAPTER VII.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Negotiations at Ghent.</span></h2> -<p>A separate chapter is devoted to the joint conference at Ghent because -therein is shown the subtle, diplomatically concealed, purpose of -the then English Government. The record of the proceedings of the -conference, in order to be fully understood, should be read in the light of -the afterwards revealed fact that, at the same time these negotiations -were being conducted, the expedition against Louisiana was secretly -planned and dispatched. Things that are puzzling in the making often -become clear in the aftermath. And so it is in this case.</p> -<p>The defeat and resultant abdication of Napoleon (April 4, 1814) -released England’s European troops for pursuing the American war with -greater vigor, and to punish the United States for having declared war -at England’s most embarrassing moment. It would not be a violent assumption -to say that at least some members of the British Government -felt that the time was opportune at last to take Louisiana and thus redress -a grievance nurtured since 1803, when Bonaparte snatched that great -domain from England’s outstretched hands.</p> -<p>The exact date on which the Louisiana expedition was determined -upon is not material. Plain evidence discloses that during the joint -peace negotiation its details were arranged and the army sent forward -to take New Orleans. We now know that after the capture of Washington -by the British and the burning and sacking of the public buildings -there (August 24, 1814), the British invading forces, after being later -repulsed in an attack upon Baltimore, repaired under orders to Nigril -Bay, Jamaica, to await recruits for the expedition against New Orleans. -With the time then required for ocean travel, these orders must have been -given prior to, or about the time of the meeting of the Peace Commissioners -at Ghent, August 4, 1814.</p> -<p>Let us visualize the two groups assembled at Ghent. First, consider -the five Americans. They were earnestly desirous of a quick and honorable -peace. Their country was riven with dissatisfaction produced by -a powerful anti-administration and anti-war party, seemingly in control -of the northeastern states, making dire threats, unless hostilities were soon -ended.</p> -<p>The American Commissioners were prepared and authorized to forego -the questions of impressment and orders in council, which caused the war, -and conclude a peace pact on the basis of the status before the war. For -a month they had been waiting the coming of the British Commissioners. -It is evident there was a purpose on the part of the British Government -to delay.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_26">26</div> -<p>The second group consisted of three suave English Commissioners, -who appeared at Ghent, as before stated, August 4th.</p> -<p>These English Commissioners began by making, on behalf of their -Government, demands objectionable and humiliating, the discussion of -which, often at long distance with the London Government officials, consumed -time. Finally the American Commissioners were forced to write -to Washington for further instructions.</p> -<p>From “The Diplomacy of the War of 1812,” by Frank A. Updyke, -which is a most valuable account of the Peace conference, quotation is -given from pages 220 and 221. “It was the unanimous opinion of the -American ministers that Great Britain’s policy was to consume as much -time as possible before the termination of negotiations, in order that some -decided victory might be gained in the war which would make it easier -for her to insist upon her demands.”</p> -<p>This quotation is given to show that our ministers recognized the -British tactics as sparring for time; but the record does not show that -any one of them thought of New Orleans as the objective point of British -design.</p> -<p>The records in connection with the negotiations are voluminous, and -make very interesting reading. But viewed in the after revealed facts, -the truth stands out so clearly that the proceedings of the Peace Conference -in English consideration and the secret expedition to capture New -Orleans were so closely inter-related that in arriving at the material -verity, much material in that conference should be disregarded as intended -by the English to delay and becloud, and so matters coming before -the Conference referring to Louisiana should only be considered in connection -with our mission.</p> -<p>Frank A. Updyke, Ph.D. of Dartmouth College, in his “The Diplomacy -of the War of 1812,” quoted from above, has given a condensed, -fully annotated, account of the proceedings of the Peace Conference. It -is a work, published in 1915, which deserves place as a supplementary -textbook in every college and high school. I have made liberal use of -Dr. Updyke’s volume, which merits high place for research effort and -reference.</p> -<p>The Joint Commission had been in session a little over two months when -the first note was struck significant of the British underlying purpose. -It was in the communication of the English Government through their -ministers to the American Commissioners. The document was dated -October 8, 1814. (See American State papers.)</p> -<p>“The first paragraph,” says Updyke (page 269), “attempted to show -the illegality of the purchase of Louisiana and the spirit of territorial -aggrandisement on the part of the United States which this act manifested.”</p> -<p>It might have been inferred that this attack upon the legality of the -<span class="pb" id="Page_27">27</span> -title to Louisiana would be followed by a demand of some sort; but no -such demand was made. In fact, the treaty as finally adopted, contained -no mention of Louisiana.</p> -<p>It is highly pertinent to ask a question as to what was the purpose -of this attack upon the title of Louisiana. All such things have a purpose.</p> -<p>In the light of present knowledge that purpose is clear. The great -expedition against New Orleans being near completion, it is obvious that -the British Government recognized the good diplomatic position before -the world, after the capture of Louisiana, of showing a record of fair -warning as justification for retention.</p> -<p>The reply of the Americans to the note of October 8th was dated -October 13th. (See American State papers.)</p> -<p>Quotation is given from Updyke, page 284:</p> -<p>“While endeavoring to make the reply brief, the American ministers -could not refrain from discussing some other topics adverted to by the -British in their note. The British ministers had made the charge that the -acquisition of Louisiana by the United States was illegal, Spain having -offered a remonstrance against its cession and the right of France to -make it. To this the American note responded that, although the Spanish -minister at Washington had made such remonstrance, at that very time -orders were given by Spain for the delivery of Louisiana to France. So -France was in actual possession of the territory when she disposed of it -to the United States.”</p> -<p>Another matter, although not in chronological turn, may be here presented, -as showing further the English attitude towards Louisiana. In -the course of the note of the Americans to the British, dated November -10, 1814 (see American State papers), Updyke says, page 307: “The -American note refused to consent to the British proposal to fix the northwest -boundary by the line from the lake of the Woods to the Mississippi -unless the boundaries of Louisiana should also be provided for in the -settlement.”</p> -<p>The British ministers in referring the note to their Government, said -they were unwilling to consent to a discussion of the Louisiana boundary, -for their doing so might be taken as a recognition of the right of the -United States to the occupation of the territory. (See Updyke, page 310.)</p> -<p>What might be called the Uti Possidetis scheme was embraced in a -British note of October 21st (see American State papers). The British -proposed the Uti Possidetis principle, as a basis of settlement, under -which each side would keep what territory it should be possessed of at -the promulgation of peace.</p> -<p>The reason behind this proposal seems now very patent. The adoption -of this principle would have enabled England, by indisputable treaty -right, to retain Louisiana, which she confidently expected to take.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_28">28</div> -<p>But the Americans opposed this principle and firmly insisted on a -treaty based upon conditions at the beginning of the war.</p> -<p>The English were very insistent and for a time there appeared a new -danger that the conference would break up. But, as will appear later, -British diplomacy, the most skilful in the world, found a way to accomplish -the main objective of the Uti Possidetis; that is to say, the retention -of Louisiana after the expected reduction of New Orleans.</p> -<p>While these peace negotiations were simmering at Ghent, the well-planned, -secret expedition against New Orleans was completed in detail, -and with confident feeling of assurance that, because of its size and -veteran fibre, it would be invincible, it was finally put on its way to -join the waiting troops at Nigril Bay, Jamaica. Sir Edward Pakenham -was appointed Commander of the Expeditionary forces. A. C. Buell, -in his “History of Andrew Jackson,” published in 1904, states that Pakenham’s -order was dated November 4, 1814, and read according to English -war office minute; that General Pakenham “shall proceed to Plymouth -and embark there for Louisiana to assume command of the forces operating -for the reduction of that province.” Buell cites as authority Bathurst -papers; State Paper Office, London.</p> -<p>On the assumption of the correctness of Buell’s citation, the term -“Province” as applied to Louisiana, in English official orders, represents -the radical difference of viewpoint as to Louisiana at the time between -the British Government and the American Union, of which the English -termed province was a fair possession from which already one state had -been carved. (Louisiana in 1812.)</p> -<p>While the British Expedition was ploughing the seas, unexpected resistance -was forming under an American general, who didn’t know what -defeat was.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_29">29</div> -<h2 id="c11"><span class="small">CHAPTER VIII.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Negotiations at Ghent—Continued.</span></h2> -<p>We will now return to the parleys at Ghent. The British continued -to insist on the Uti Possidetis as a basis of a Peace Treaty, but proposed -that it be “subject to such modifications as mutual convenience may be -found to require.” In a letter to the British Commissioners, dated October -18th, Lord Bathurst, quoted by Updyke (page 288), cited several -points on which mutual accommodations might be had; but Louisiana was -not one of the points. For if it had been there would have seemingly -been no use planning and sending out the great expedition for the “reduction -of that province.”</p> -<p>From many interesting details touching the Uti Possidetis proposals, -the reader is referred to Updyke (“The Diplomacy of the War of 1812”), -pages 288 to 319.</p> -<p>Finally, realizing the unshaken adherence of the Americans to the -antebellum status, the British gave up the Uti Possidetis demand, and by -specific wording obviously sought to protect the Louisiana design.</p> -<p>In the amended proposal of the British (see British to American -ministers Nov. 26, 1814), there are two things highly pertinent to the -inquiry we are conducting, to establish the real value of the Battle of -New Orleans. The first was the provision that peace would not be effective -until after ratification by both countries. The second consisted in -the proposed wording for the mutual restoration clause as follows: “Belonging -to either party, taken by the other.” The effect of this wording -in the mutual restoration clause, would have been that all territory belonging -to either party, taken by the other, should be returned. But this -would not embrace Louisiana, for from the English standpoint, it did -not legally belong to the United States.</p> -<p>As to the first point, a quotation is here given from Updyke (page -317): “The amended project returned by the British commissioners provided -that the notification for the cessation of the war be issued after -ratifications of the treaty should have been exchanged rather than at the -time of the signature. This was designed, it was supposed, to give time -for the completion of the British plans against New Orleans, the successful -outcome of which was never doubted.”</p> -<p>The American ministers, on November 30th, consented to the substitution -of the day of exchange of ratifications for that of the signature -of the treaty, as the time for cessation of hostilities, and for regulating -the period when prizes at sea shall be restored. (See American to British -ministers, Nov. 30, 1814.)</p> -<p>This agreement was duly carried into the treaty, as we have heretofore -set forth, Article XI, prescribing all details.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_30">30</div> -<p>The American ministers opposed the proposed words in the mutual -restoration clause, “belonging to either party, taken by the other.” They -insisted on the words, “taken by either party from the other.” Strong -reasons were given by the Americans for their attitude, but the British -ministers refused to yield, saying the matter would be referred to their -Government (Updyke, pp. 324-325).</p> -<p>The British Government, on December 6th, instructed their Commissioners -to insist upon the retention of the words in dispute, and advanced -skilful arguments, in which the real purpose was not revealed. For a -digest of these arguments, see Updyke, pages 335-336.</p> -<p>To the present day reader, having knowledge of the expedition, which -was then on its way to capture New Orleans, the English purpose seems -very manifest.</p> -<p>With diplomatic art the British Government sought to make it appear -that the disputed words, “belonging to either party and taken by the -other,” were founded in the objective relating to the islands in Passamaquoddy -Bay during the time of the agreed upon reference to a commission -to determine the ownership of these Islands.</p> -<p>The Americans, not aware, of course, of the expedition against New -Orleans, accepted the viewpoint advanced as to the disputed words, but -while rejecting the words, indicated that they would be “willing to admit -such a modification as should secure the right of Great Britain from being -affected or impaired by yielding possession of the Islands to the United -States.” (Updyke, p. 343.)</p> -<p>The British ministers replied, arguing England’s position. That position -in effect was, that during the war she had taken these islands, the -title to which was in dispute, and that to call upon her to restore them, -because they were occupied by the United States at the beginning of the -war, would be unjust; that having agreed to a commission to settle the -ownership of the islands, she was willing, if need be, to accede to a -clause which would especially guard the ultimate right against the prejudice -which the American ministers feared might arise from the continued -possession by Great Britain. The British ministers admitted the comparatively -small value of the territory in question, but claimed that yielding -possession of the Islands involved a point of honor on the part of -Great Britain, and, if insisted upon, might make the conclusion of peace -impossible. (See Updyke, pp. 343-344; report of conference of Dec. 12, -1814, given by British Commissioners to Lord Castlereagh.)</p> -<p>The Americans yielded the point, and thus it appears that the British -Government secured the accession of the principle of the great concealed -objective on a matter of minor importance. Thus the word “possessions” -was admitted into the mutual restoration clause of the peace treaty.</p> -<p>That mutual restoration clause, as adopted, and incorporated in Article -1, of the Treaty of Ghent, reads as follows:</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_31">31</div> -<p>“All territory, places and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party -from the other during the War, or which may be taken after the signing -of this Treaty, excepting only the Islands hereinafter mentioned, shall -be restored without delay and without causing any destruction or carrying -away of any of the artillery or other public property originally captured -in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the -exchange of the ratification of this Treaty, or any slaves or other private -property; and all archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public -nature or belonging to private persons, which, in the course of the War, -may have fallen into the hands of the officers, of either party shall be, -as far as may be practicable, forthwith restored and delivered to the proper -authorities and persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the -Islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both parties, -shall remain in the possession of the party in whose occupation they may -be at the time of the exchange of the ratification of this Treaty until the -decision respecting the title to said islands shall have been made in conformity -with the fourth article of this Treaty. No disposition made by -this Treaty as to such possession of such islands and territories claimed -by both parties shall, in any manner whatever, be construed to affect the -right of either.”</p> -<p>The Treaty, from which the clause above is quoted, can of course be -found in Washington, but copy may be seen at almost any general public -library, in the volume herebefore referred to containing various Treaties -of the United States.</p> -<p>The reader, who has been following us in our showing of the various -stages of the development of the British design to protect, by diplomacy, -the Louisiana expedition, will recognize the significance of the word “possessions.” -By reason of that word, the British were in position to maintain, -after capturing Louisiana, that it was not subject to return under -the mutual restoration clause adopted, not being, under English construction, -a legal “possession” of the United States, formal notice of that -construction having been given in the treaty negotiations. The subtly -accomplished insertion of the word in the treaty represented a triumph -of ulterior British diplomatic design over the very able, hard-headed, but -open and candid American commissioners, who were entirely in the dark -as to the Expedition dispatched to seize Louisiana.</p> -<p>That word was of course not as exclusive of argument as the Uti -Possidetis principle first proposed, and insisted upon almost as a sine -qua non; nor was it as clear as the wording subsequently urged, “belonging -to either party and taken by the other”; but it was all sufficient, backed -by the British conviction that Louisiana was not a legal possession of the -United States, and supported by the mighty British martial power, then -unleashed from European war.</p> -<p>It is obvious to the writer that but for the word “possessions,” or -<span class="pb" id="Page_32">32</span> -wording of similar import, the treaty would not have been agreed to by -the British; in fact, such indication was given by the British ministers -at the joint conference December 12th, under the guise of the principle -pertaining to the Passamaquoddy Islands.</p> -<p>Any presumption that Great Britain, after planning the great expedition -against Louisiana, would have, within a few weeks following the -final dispatch of the military forces, signed a peace treaty, recalling those -forces from an attained, long-dreamed-of conquest, is a reflection upon -the intelligence of the British Government of 1814-15.</p> -<p>With the treaty agreed to, the English Government became anxious -about its ratification by President Madison. Significant evidence of this -is furnished by Doctor Updyke, in his work from which we have already -made a number of quotations. On page 355, Updyke says, “The British -ministry had hoped that their last communication would enable the commissioners -to close the negotiations for the treaty of peace. They were, -however, suspicious of President Madison, and feared he would not sign -the treaty. For this reason it was stipulated that the war should not cease -until after the exchange of ratifications at Washington. They counted -upon having a strong English fleet in the Chesapeake and the Delaware -at the time that Baker, the bearer of the British copy of the treaty, should -reach Washington; and they also counted upon the disposition of the -Eastern states to secede from the Union, as likely to ‘frighten Madison.’ -It was suggested that if Madison should refuse to ratify the treaty the -British Government should immediately propose to make a separate treaty -with the New England States, which it was believed could be accomplished.”</p> -<p>Dr. Updyke gives as authority for the foregoing paragraph: “Liverpool -to Castlereagh, December 23, 1814; Wellington Supplementary Dispatches, -IX, 495.”</p> -<p>Lord Liverpool was prime minister and Lord Castlereagh was secretary -for foreign affairs.</p> -<p>The digest given of correspondence between these high English Government -officials makes it plain that the English Government was anxious -for ratification of the Peace Treaty and that they were fearful that Madison -would not sign.</p> -<p>As confirmatory of the Liverpool apprehension it may be mentioned -that the <i>London Times</i>, December 31, 1814 (see British Museum), said -that the ratification by Madison depended upon the outcome of the expedition -against New Orleans. The <i>London Times</i> was unfriendly to the -Liverpool government, and was also very hostile to the United States. In -the circumstances it may fairly be presumed that to allay criticism of -the treaty the press was informed of the expected New Orleans coup.</p> -<p>In view of the unanimous action of the American Commissioners in -agreeing to the Treaty, it becomes very evident that the British Government -<span class="pb" id="Page_33">33</span> -anticipated that something would transpire before the Treaty -reached Washington that might cause the President to withhold his approval. -In the light of present knowledge, that something was the expected -British capture of New Orleans. We may well ask the question, -as to why the British Government was so anxious for the ratification of -the Treaty as to plan to “frighten Madison” and threaten separate peace -with New England, thus disrupting the Union, if that Government expected -to turn back Louisiana after its anticipated conquest. That question -carries its own obvious answer.</p> -<p>Happily for us, and for England as consequences have proved, and -for the world, the dilemma in which the English statesmen thought President -Madison would be placed, was averted.</p> -<p>While Carroll, with the American copy of the Treaty, and Baker, -with the English copy, also having authority to exchange ratification, -ploughed the seas, an event was in the making of destiny, which, when -brought forth, utterly confounded the carefully laid plans of the Liverpool-Castlereagh -Government, and in fact ushered in a new epoch, a new and -greater era for the young American Republic—never again to be pointed -to as an experiment.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_34">34</div> -<h2 id="c12"><span class="small">CHAPTER IX.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Washington, the First of 1815.</span></h2> -<p>One of the most thrilling incidents in our history is the reception by -the country of the news of the Battle of New Orleans. It was theatrically -acclaimed, with almost delirious joy, sharply contrasting with the condition -of deep discouragement and gloom it suddenly dissipated. Seldom -has a victory had more dramatic setting. It is well for us who enjoy -the rich blessings of the present, occasionally to read of the trials and -tribulations through which our forebears struggled, that they might hand -these blessings down to us. “If an old man of perfect memory,” says -James Parton, in Chapter 20 of the second volume of the Life of Andrew -Jackson, published in 1860, “were asked to name the time when the prospects -of this republic were shrouded in deepest gloom, and the largest -number of the people despaired of its future, his answer, I think, would -be, ‘the first thirty-seven days of the year 1815.’” (Parton makes an -error of two days, for the news of the battle of New Orleans reached -Washington February 4th.)</p> -<p>“The Capital,” says Parton, “was in ruins” (as a result of its burning -by the British the preceding August).</p> -<p>Parton further referred to the Hartford Convention, which on January -5th had closed several weeks of session. This anti-war convention -was denounced as treasonable by administrative papers. It had aroused -gravest apprehensions of disunion unless peace should at once be made.</p> -<p>In order to convey an idea of the antagonistic spirit prevailing, quotation -is here given from the <i>Boston Gazette</i>, of that period: “Is there a -Federalist, a patriot in America, who conceives it his duty to shed his -blood for Bonaparte, for Madison and Jefferson, and that host of ruffians -in Congress, who have set their faces against us for years, and spirited -up the brutal part of the populace to destroy us? Not one! Shall we, -then, any longer be held in slavery, and driven to desperate poverty by -such a graceless faction?”</p> -<p>Parton further quotes many New England editors as saying: “No -more taxes from New England, till the administration makes peace.”</p> -<p>Parton further says that the great British expedition, so long mustering -in the West Indies, so long delayed, cast a prodigious shadow before -it, putting New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore on their guard; but -that as the autumn passed without the reappearance of hostile force in -the northern waters, the conviction gained ground that something overwhelming -was in contemplation against the defenseless south and southwest.</p> -<p>“It so chanced,” continues Parton, “that the 8th of January was the -days on which it was first whispered about Washington that the President -<span class="pb" id="Page_35">35</span> -had received news of the British fleet at the mouth of the Mississippi. -From that time the eyes of the country were fixed upon New Orleans—not -hopefully.”</p> -<p>“It is not an overstatement of the case,” continues Parton, “to say -that there was not one well informed man in the northern states who -believed that New Orleans could be successfully defended.”</p> -<p>Again quoting from Parton: “After a week of gossip and foreboding, -came news of the gunboat battle, and its disastrous results; also rumors -of a great armament hovering on the Atlantic coast. ‘We are a lost -country,’ said the Federal papers in doleful concert. ‘A wicked administration -has ruined us. New Orleans having fallen an easy prey, the -British General will leave a few acclimated black regiments to garrison -that city, and bring the Wellington heroes around to the Chesapeake. -Baltimore will not be able to resist. Washington will again be overrun, -Philadelphia and New York will next be attacked, and who shall say -with what results? See to what a pass Jefferson and French democracy -have brought a deluded country!’”</p> -<p>All sorts of dire rumors were in circulation, and to add to the gloom -that prevailed in Washington and elsewhere, a snow storm of remarkable -violence and extent set in on the 23rd of January, and continued for -three days. Belated mails straggled in, showing that the American Army -was still resisting. “New Orleans is not taken yet,” said the Western -members, and the Republican editors. “It is merely a question of time,” -replied the Federalists; “the next mail will finish New Orleans and you.”</p> -<p>In the midst of that setting, on February 4th, a horseman came into -Washington, bearing glorious news for the Administration forces. He -had dispatches from General Jackson, detailing the decisive victory of -January 8th.</p> -<p>Washington was wild with delight at the unexpected victory. “That -evening,” still quoting from Parton, “the town was blazing with light, -and the whole populace was abroad, now thronging about the White -House (temporary), cheering the President, then surging around the -houses of the Secretaries, and residences of the leading supporters of the -war, rending the air with shouts.... The next issue of the <i>National -Intelligencer</i> cannot be glanced over to this day without exciting in the -mind something of the feeling which is wont to express itself by three -times three and one cheer more. The great news was headed, in the <i>Intelligencer’s</i> -largest type, ‘Almost Incredible Victory!!!!’”</p> -<p>It was worth a life time to experience the jubilation of that night! -It was the sudden restoration of a people’s national self-respect.</p> -<p>The news of the reception of the victory elsewhere was equally as -thrilling. It aroused what Parton called the “maddest enthusiasm.” A -quotation may be given from the autobiography of Mr. John Binns: -“A general illumination was ordered in Philadelphia. Few indeed there -<span class="pb" id="Page_36">36</span> -were yet there were a few who on that night closed their window shutters -and mourned the defeat of the enemies of their country. I had early -intelligence of this joyful news, and gladly, by an extra, spread it abroad. -I put scene painters to work, and had a transparency painted, which covered -nearly the whole front of my house. There had been a heavy snow -fall, and there was that evening from nine to twelve inches of snow on -the ground. That, however, did not prevent men, women and children -from parading the street, and delighting their eyes by looking at the -illumination and illuminated transparencies, which made the principal -streets of our city as light as day. My transparency represented General -Jackson on horseback at the head of his staff, in pursuit of the enemy, -with the motto: ‘This day shall ne’er go by, from this day to the ending -of the world, but He, in it, shall be remembered.’”</p> -<p>This gives in brief a glimpse of the effect in the country of the news -of the victory at New Orleans. How can any American describe it as a -needless battle? After the event it might have been deplored by the -British as needless, just as any lost battle may be so regarded.</p> -<p>Just ten days after that lone horseman rode into Washington on -February 4th, the Treaty reached the Capitol, and under the inspiration -of the great victory at New Orleans, it was joyfully and speedily ratified.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_37">37</div> -<h2 id="c13"><span class="small">CHAPTER X.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">But What If the Issue of the Battle Had Been Different?</span></h2> -<p>As stated in the <a href="#c12">last chapter</a>, the Peace Treaty was speedily and joyfully -ratified. But what if the issue of the battle had been different?</p> -<p>The chronology of the Treaty may here be given:</p> -<p>Signed at Ghent, on the 24th day of December, 1814, by the Peace -Commissioners representing the two countries;</p> -<p>Ratified for England by the Prince Regent on December 31st, 1814.</p> -<p>Reached Washington the night of February 14th, 1815;</p> -<p>Sent by President Madison to the Senate February 15th;</p> -<p>Ratification advised by the Senate, February 16th;</p> -<p>Ratified by President Madison February 17th, and ratification exchanged -with England’s representative the same day;</p> -<p>Promulgated by President Madison February 18th; thus ending the -period of hostilities.</p> -<p>Would the United States Senate have advised ratification, or would -the President have ratified, if the British on January 8th, had swept aside -that defensive army and had carried into effect the design to capture and -occupy Louisiana?</p> -<p>Probably no more grave or serious situation has ever confronted an -American President than that which would have been presented. By -ratifying the treaty, the President would have satisfied the New England -malcontents, who had given veiled threats of disunion. But by the -ratification with England in possession of Louisiana, and holding that -it was not a legal possession of the United States, the President would -have faced a desperate alternative of giving up Louisiana, and the trans-Mississippi -territory; or referring it to the issue of a future war, or future -negotiations.</p> -<p>It is the belief of the writer that President Madison would have declined -to ratify the Treaty, as long as the British remained in occupation -of Louisiana; thus prolonging the war with its uncertainties, and taking -the risk of the disruption of the Union, through a separate peace with -England by the New England States; a proposition which, as we have -seen, was in contemplation by the English Government.</p> -<p>All of these questions, so momentous, to the American Union, were -happily and gloriously averted by the marvelous defensive victory at -New Orleans.</p> -<p>And yet, American historians teach our children that that battle was -a needless one!</p> -<p>Oh, ignorance! Oh, prejudice! Oh, pro-English!!</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_38">38</div> -<h2 id="c14"><span class="small">CHAPTER XI.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Testimony From General Jackson Himself.</span></h2> -<p>In presenting this case against the school historians, which he feels -has already been made, to the satisfaction of any impartial reader, the -writer has refrained from using much confirmatory material in order -to be as brief as possible. But in the history of Andrew Jackson, written -by A. C. Buell, and published in 1904, there occurs illuminating data -highly apropos in this connection. It may be remarked that Buell is not -a favorite of some historians. Buell was distinctly not pro-English.</p> -<p>In chapter 3 of the second volume of Buell’s history, entitled “British -Designs on Louisiana,” the author reiterates a statement before made, -that Jackson’s Army of New Orleans saved the Louisiana Purchase, and -adds that few people of the millions who were celebrating in 1904 the -centenary of the colossal transaction between Napoleon Bonaparte and -Thomas Jefferson, realized the significance of these words. Buell later -says: “Viewed in the light of its actual influence on the map of North -America, and the fortunes of this Republic, it was the most important -battle ever fought between Great Britain and the United States.... The -real, vast, enduring value of the Battle of New Orleans, lay in the fact -that it prevented another war.”</p> -<p>In adducing evidence of the purpose of the English Government -against Louisiana, Buell says: “The fleet carried more than an army, the -narratives of the subaltern and Capt. Cooke, reputable British officers of -85th and 43rd Light Infantry, respectively, tell us there was on board -the fleet ‘a complete civil government staff’ to be installed in place of -the State Government of Louisiana at the moment of occupation. One -of them, with a spice of humor, informs us that one member of this ‘civil -government staff’ was ‘a worthy Colonial official whose confidence in the -success of the Expedition led him to resign the comfortable position of -Collector of Barbadoes to take the larger and more lucrative post for the -(to-be) Crown Colony of Louisiana.”</p> -<p>As other members of the civil government staff Mr. Buell names -Honorable Mr. Elwood, Lieut. Governor, transferred from Trinidad, and -Mr. Dockstader, transferred from upper Canada; also an Attorney-General, -an Admiralty Judge, and a Secretary of the Colony, sent from -England direct.</p> -<p>Mr. Buell continues: “Besides his general orders at Plymouth, Pakenham -brought with him a proclamation approved by the Home Government -or Colonial office. This proclamation was to be published as soon as the -British Army should occupy New Orleans. It promised protection to -everybody, general amnesty to all previously engaged in hostilities, and -proclaimed the sovereignty of England, in behalf of Spain, over all the -territory fraudulently conveyed by Bonaparte to the United States. It -<span class="pb" id="Page_39">39</span> -denied the validity of the secret treaty by which Spain re-ceded Louisiana -to France in 1800. It denied Bonaparte’s right to act for France in 1803. -And finally it ‘denounced the pretentions of the United States to sovereignty -under the alleged purchase from Bonaparte.’ This proclamation -was in printed form at British headquarters the night before the battle, -and its contents were well known to many British officers. The night -after the battle it disappeared. Every copy of it was burned!</p> -<p>“All this evidence was obtained from British prisoners taken in the -battle of January 8th. But it lacked one link to make the chain perfect. -That was evidence of specific design and fixed policy on the part of the -British Government. In the absence of such evidence the cabinet of -St. James might, in emergency, declare that the scheme of a ‘crown -colony’ and the proclamation itself were the acts of General Pakenham—to -be approved if he succeeded or disavowed if he failed. The needed -link was supplied long after.”</p> -<p>“The final link in the chain,” says Mr. Buell, “was furnished by -General Jackson himself. In the fall of 1875, the author, then a staff -correspondent of the <i>Missouri Republican</i>, visited former Governor William -Allen, of Ohio, at his farm near Chillicothe. During the visit, -which was of three days’ duration, the venerable statesman’s conversation—when -not upon agricultural subjects—was mainly of reminiscences -of his earlier public life. All was interesting; some of it historically -valuable, particularly those parts relating to the British invasion of Louisiana. -What Governor Allen said on this subject we reproduce here, -exactly as it was printed in 1875.”</p> -<p>Governor Allen’s interview is here given in full:</p> -<p>“Near the end of General Jackson’s second administration and shortly -after the admission of Arkansas to the Union, I, being Senator elect from -Ohio, went to Washington to take the seat on March 4th.</p> -<p>“General Jackson,—he always preferred to be called General rather -than Mr. President, and so we always addressed him by his military -title—General Jackson invited me to lunch with him. No sooner were -we seated than he said: ‘Mr. Allen, let us take a little drink to the new -star in the flag—Arkansas.’ This ceremony being duly observed, the -General said: ‘Allen, if there had been disaster instead of victory at New -Orleans, there never would have been a state of Arkansas.’”</p> -<p>“This, of course, interested me, and I asked: ‘Why do you say that, -General?’</p> -<p>“Then he said, that if Pakenham had taken New Orleans, the British -would have claimed and held the whole Louisiana Purchase. But I said: -‘You know, General Jackson, that the treaty of Ghent, which had been -signed fifteen days before the battle, provided for restoration of all territory, -places and possessions taken by either nation from the other during -the war, with certain unimportant exceptions.’</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_40">40</div> -<p>“‘Yes, of course,’ he replied, ‘But the minutes of the conference at -Ghent as kept by Mr. Gallatin, represent the British commissioners as -declaring in exact words: ‘We do not admit Bonaparte’s construction of -the law of nations; and we cannot accept it in relation to any subject -matter before us.’</p> -<p>“‘At that moment,’ pursued General Jackson, ‘none of our Commissioners -knew what the real meaning of these words was. When they -were uttered, the British Commissioners knew that Pakenham’s expedition -had been decided on. Our Commissioners did not know it. Now, -since I have been Chief Magistrate, I have learned from diplomatic -sources of the most unquestionable authority, that the British ministry -did not intend the Treaty of Ghent to apply to the Louisiana Purchase -at all. The whole corporation of them, from 1803 to 1815—Pitt, the -Duke of Portland, Granville, Percival, Lord Liverpool and Castlereagh—denied -the legal right of Napoleon to sell Louisiana to us, and they held, -therefore, that we had no right to that territory. So you see, Allen, that -the words of Mr. Goulburn, on behalf of the British Commissioners, which -I have quoted to you from Albert Gallatin’s Minutes of the Conference, -had a far deeper significance than our commissioners could perpetrate. -Those words were meant to lay the foundation for a claim on the Louisiana -Purchase entirely external to the provisions of the Treaty of Ghent. And -in that way the British Government was signing a treaty with one hand -in front while with the other hand behind its back it was despatching -Pakenham’s army to seize the fairest of our possessions.</p> -<p>“‘You can also see, my dear William,’ said the old General, waxing -warm (having once or twice more during the luncheon toasted the new -star), ‘you can also see what an awful mess such a situation would have -been if the British programme had been carried out in full. But Providence -willed otherwise. All the tangled web that the cunning of the -English Diplomats could weave around our unsuspecting commissioners -at Ghent was torn to pieces and soaked with British blood in half an -hour at New Orleans by the never-missing rifles of my Tennessee and -Kentucky pioneers. And that ended it. British diplomacy could do -wonders, but it couldn’t provide against such a contingency as that. The -British Commissioners could throw sand in the eyes of ours at Ghent, -but they couldn’t help the cold lead that my riflemen sprinkled in the -faces of their soldiers at New Orleans. Now, Allen, you have the whole -story. Now you know why Arkansas was saved at New Orleans. Let’s -take another little one.’”</p> -<p>Thomas E. Watson, at one time United States Senator from Georgia, -in a history of Jackson, written after Buell’s history, quotes this interview -and comments that it settles the question, and that if the British -had captured New Orleans, the United States boundary line would have -stopped at the Mississippi.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_41">41</div> -<h2 id="c15"><span class="small">CHAPTER XII.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Captain Garland’s Testimony On the Spot.</span></h2> -<p>Captain Henry Garland was one of Jackson’s young officers at New -Orleans. In view of the brilliance and stirring eloquence of a speech -made by him, which I am about to give, from the same chapter heretofore -quoted from Buell, it will be interesting to give a digest of Buell’s -description of him: He was born at Nantes, France, his father a merchant -of Norfolk, Virginia, residing there as Commercial Agent for American -importing houses. He received his education in French schools. Coming -to America, he went to Tennessee, and in the War of 1812 volunteered in -Coffee’s mounted riflemen, serving with distinction throughout the war.</p> -<p>In the latter part of March, 1815, the officers of the Louisiana militia -gave a banquet to those of the Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi troops -and the Regulars, on the eve of the disbandment of Jackson’s Army. Captain -Garland was selected by his comrades to respond in French on their -behalf.</p> -<p>“The guests,” said Buell, “were welcomed on behalf of the Creole -hosts and hostesses by Vicar-General, the Most Reverend Abbe Dubourg, -Bishop of Louisiana, who made a brief address of welcome, first in English -and then in French. In conclusion, the Abbe expressed sorrow that -such an awful battle should have been fought and so many souls sent unprepared -into the presence of the Creator, two weeks after the Treaty -of Peace had been signed on the other side of the Ocean.”</p> -<p>According to Buell, the Abbe’s remarks changed the whole character -of Garland’s reply. He spoke in French, which was afterwards translated.</p> -<p>The writer recommends a full reading of this, at points, remarkably -eloquent speech, from which some excerpts are here given.</p> -<p>After some introductory remarks, Captain Garland said: “The most -reverend prelate, in his otherwise well chosen remarks, suggested that -it was a pity that such an awful battle should have been fought after the -Treaty was signed across the wide water. I do not agree with him. It -needed that battle to make the Treaty good. It made no difference when -the Treaty was signed. Without that battle it must have been waste paper.</p> -<p>“The Treaty as written, did not mean anything. It says that the -territorial status quo ante bellum shall be observed. But the British Cabinet -held ‘’l’arriere pensee’ about that. They never admitted Napoleon’s -right to convey Louisiana to us through President Jefferson. They did -not mean to include the Louisiana Purchase in the territorial status quo -ante bellum!</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_42">42</div> -<p>“The Treaty signed in ink on the 24th of December was a cheat. But -the Treaty that the Pioneers of Tennessee and Kentucky punctuated with -rifle bullets the 8th of January will stand. The English diplomats -at Ghent held, as I have said, ‘’l’arriere-pensee.’ But the British soldiers -who lay down to die in front of Kentucky and Tennessee the 8th of January -on Chalmette plain were sincere and honest. It was in their life -blood that the real treaty was written; not in the ink of Ghent.</p> -<p>“The English plan of subjugation was complete. Soon after the battle -it was learned that General Pakenham had a proclamation written, signed -and ready to be promulgated the moment his Army should enter the -City. This proclamation denied the right of Napoleon to sell Louisiana, -denounced the pretentions of the United States to its sovereignty, declared -that Spain, the rightful possessor, was incapable of maintaining -her territorial rights, and, finally, asserted a provisional occupation by -the British forces as a virtual protectorate in behalf of the Spanish Crown. -The night after the battle, this proclamation was burned. It may have -been used to illuminate the scene where the corpse of its author was being -prepared for shipment to England in a cask of rum.</p> -<p>“It is commonly known that, the night of January 7th, a council of -war was held in the British camp. It is also known to many that, on -that occasion, Major-General Sir Samuel Gibbs spoke of General Jackson’s -Army as a ‘backwoods rabble.’ He was right. That’s what we are—from -the point of view of a British regular. We are ‘Backwoodsmen,’ -because we were born and raised in little log cabins all along our great -frontier. The mothers who gave us milk, made their own clothes, and -ours, too, of homespun or of buckskin. As soon as we could lift a rifle -we had to hunt our meat in the woods. Yes, we are ‘backwoodsmen.’ -And from the point of view of a British regular, we are a ‘rabble,’ too. -That is, we are not soldiers in the regular sense of the term. We are -not enlisted; we don’t get any pay. We are simply assembled, as volunteers, -to defend our country. We have a kind of organization, it is true; -but it is as independent companies, composed of neighbors, and our officers -are simply those men whose characters and experience point them out as -natural leaders. In one word, we have no regulations, except those of -common sense; no discipline, except that of common consent; no mastery, -one over the other, except that of manhood! Such are the men who rallied -from Tennessee and Kentucky when Andrew Jackson called.</p> -<p>“Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, they are a ‘backwoods rabble.’ They -met, say, three times their number of soldiers who were the Pride of -England! And the ‘Backwoods Rabble’ laid that ‘Pride of England’ -low!”</p> -<p class="center"><span class="gs">* * * * * * * *</span></p> -<p>“And now just one word more: Most people say that our American -Republic was born the fourth day of July, 1776, at Philadelphia. This -<span class="pb" id="Page_43">43</span> -is not true. It was only begotten then. It was born when Burgoyne -surrendered at Saratoga. It was baptised when Cornwallis yielded at -Yorktown. But it was never confirmed, as they say in the religion of the -Holy Saviour, until the 8th of last January!</p> -<p>“That day saw not merely the repulse and destruction of a British -Army, but it taught the whole world a lesson never to be forgot. It needs -not the gift of prophecy to foresee that the battle fought by Andrew Jackson -and his ‘backwoods rabble’ did more than repulse cowardly and treacherous -invasion. It taught to all the princes and kings and emperors on -the face of the earth that they must let our young Republic alone!”</p> -<p>Apart from his testimony as to Pakenham’s intended proclamation, -and apart from his estimate of British diplomacy, the speech of Captain -Garland is well worth preserving as a specimen of real, patriotic eloquence.</p> -<p class="center"><span class="gs">* * * * * * * *</span></p> -<p>From the mass of evidence, available to any earnest historian, the -writer has selected one more witness, whose testimony is compressed, in -an incidental paragraph. At the meeting of the American Historical Association -in New Orleans in 1903, Dr. W. M. Sloane read a paper entitled, -“The World Aspects of the Louisiana Purchase.” It is published -in Volume I of the “Proceedings of the American Historical Association -of 1903.” In that paper (page 102 of Proceedings above cited) appears -this sentence: “But for Jefferson’s wisdom in explorating it (Louisiana) -might have remained a wilderness long after settlement began; Great -Britain coveted it in 1815 when Jackson saved it.” There is a sentence -compact with fact. Dr. William M. Sloane (now dead) was at the time -of the address, and for many years professor of history at Princeton University, -and a recognized authority on history.</p> -<p>In all literature there cannot be found a more concrete, comprehensive -line: “Great Britain coveted it in 1815 when Jackson saved it.” -Pro-English historians may deftly turn and twist this and other facts to -their purpose; but let me give a tocsin call: PRO-ENGLISH HISTORIANS -SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS, AND -YOUNG AMERICA TAUGHT ONLY THE UNGARBLED, UNVARNISHED -TRUTH.</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_44">44</div> -<h2 id="c16"><span class="small">CHAPTER XIII.</span> -<br /><span class="sc">Recapitulation.</span></h2> -<p>The writer, in these pages, has shown by what must be conceded on -all sides, irrefragable evidence that school histories are in error in saying -the Battle of New Orleans was fought after peace, and was therefore a -needless battle.</p> -<p>The writer has also shown by evidence he considers conclusive, that -England held as invalid the title of the United States to Louisiana, acquired -by sale from Bonaparte to the United States in 1803; that England -deliberately planned the conquest of Louisiana (with the resultant -development, if successful, of a great dominion to the west of the United -States, like Canada on the North). That evidence is mainly furnished -by the British themselves. First in the British note to the United States -Peace Commissioners, criticizing the title of the United States to Louisiana; -and, second, in the fitting out and dispatching of the expedition -against New Orleans during the peace negotiations; in the complete Civil -Government staff, for Louisiana, carried by the expedition; in the record -of the peace negotiations, first in the insistence by the British upon the -Uti Possidetis principle, and, second, when that failed, in the proposal of -words to be inserted in the Mutual Restoration clause, which proposal -finally resulted in the word, “Possessions” in that clause, under which -England could hold that Louisiana, having been taken, was not subject -to return, not being a possession of the United States; further in the -letter of Prime Minister Liverpool to Lord Castlereagh, assuming British -occupation of New Orleans, outlining purpose to “frighten Madison” into -signing the Treaty (thus leaving England in possession of Louisiana).</p> -<p>After close and careful study, the writer presents as a summary of -his conclusion as to the value of the Battle of New Orleans:</p> -<p>First, that it was a highly necessary battle on the part of the United -States, rendered so by British aggression;</p> -<p>Second, that the statement in school and other histories that it was -fought after peace is entirely false, the Peace Treaty itself being evidence. -(All historians, past, present, and to come, cannot change the text -of that Treaty);</p> -<p>Third, that it saved the Louisiana Purchase to the United States or -averted another war with England;</p> -<p>Fourth, that it settled forever the question of the title to Louisiana;</p> -<p>Fifth, that it created a profound impression on the world. Speaking, -as one orator has put it, in language all nations could understand, that -the young American Republic had the will to be free and the power to -enforce that will;</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_45">45</div> -<p>Sixth, that it marked the last time that the foot of a foreign foe has -been set on American soil, except when Mexico invaded Texas in 1846;</p> -<p>Seventh, that it practically added to the Peace Treaty that impressment -and orders in council would no longer be imposed by England, for -these obnoxious policies were never sought to be revived;</p> -<p>Eighth, that it saved this sorely harassed, nearly treason-torn country, -at a critical time in its life, from threatened and possible disunion, and -re-established national self-respect;</p> -<p>Ninth, that it made Andrew Jackson a national hero, resulting in his -election as President of the United States, and the establishment of what -is known as the Jackson era;</p> -<p>Tenth, that it resulted in mutual respect and friendship between the -United States and England, which has endured to this day, and which -it is hoped will perpetually endure.</p> -<p>Could any battle have had a greater or more varied effect?</p> -<p>School historians and other historians, in appraising the battle as a -needless and useless one, do violence to truth and grossly impose upon -Young America, as well as America in general.</p> -<p>The underlying American sentiment of honor, truth and justice demands -revision of these school histories, and that right speedily.</p> -<p>In conclusion, the writer recommends, as revision, in those histories -which desire to dispose of the Battle of New Orleans in a paragraph, the -following:</p> -<p>The Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, 1815, was one of the -most brilliant defensive victories in history. Many historians have classed -it as a needless victory in that it was fought after peace. That is an -error, for the Peace Treaty, signed by the Commissioners of the two -countries, December 24, 1814, specifically provided that it should not be -effective until ratified by both sides. It was not ratified by the United -States until February 17, 1815, soon after its reception. The news of the -victory came at a critical time in the history of the country, and was -received with great enthusiasm everywhere. It settled forever all question -as to the title of the United States to Louisiana. It saved Louisiana, -or a least averted another war with England. It resulted in lasting, solid -peace with England, which should permanently endure. As illustration -of the character of that peace, it may be pointed out that the boundary -line between the United States and Canada extending about three thousand -miles, has not, on either side, a fort or fortification. God help the -English-speaking people if one should ever be necessary!</p> -<p class="tbcenter"><i>The End.</i></p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_46">46</div> -<h2 id="c17">ADDENDA.</h2> -<h3>WORDING OF THE TREATY OF GHENT.</h3> -<p>In addition to the references cited on pages <a href="#Page_18">18</a> and <a href="#Page_30">30</a> as to the full -text of the Treaty of Ghent reference may be given to volume compiled -by Hunter Miller entitled: “Treaties and Other International Acts of the -United States of America.” (See volume 2, pages 574-584.)</p> -<h3>ENGLISH CRITICISM OF U. S. TITLE TO LOUISIANA.</h3> -<p>The third and fourth paragraphs of the note of the British Commissioners -to the American Commissioners at Ghent October 8, 1814, read as -follows:</p> -<p>In adverting for this purpose to the acquisition of Louisiana, the undersigned -must observe that the instrument by which the consent of His -Catholic Majesty is alleged to have been given to the cession of it has -never been made public. His Catholic Majesty was no party to the treaty -by which the cession was made, and if any sanction has been subsequently -obtained from him, it must have been, like other contemporaneous acts of -that monarch, involuntary, and, as such, cannot alter the character of the -transaction. The Marquis of Yrujo, the minister of His Catholic Majesty -at Washington, in a letter addressed to the President of the United States, -formally protested against the cession, and the right of France to make it; -yet in the face of this protestation, so strongly evincing the decided opinion -of Spain as to the illegality of the proceeding, the President of the -United States ratified the treaty. Can it be contended that the annexation -of Louisiana, under such circumstances, did not mark a spirit of territorial -aggrandizement?</p> -<p>His Britannic Majesty did certainly express satisfaction when the -American Government communicated the event that Louisiana, a valuable -colony in the possession of France, with whom the war had just been renewed, -instead of remaining in the hands of his enemy, had been ceded to -the United States, at that time professing the most friendly disposition -towards Great Britain, and an intention of providing for her interest in the -acquisition. But the conditions under which France had acquired Louisiana -from Spain were not communicated; the refusal of Spain to consent -to its alienation was not known; the protest of her ambassador had not -been made; and many other circumstances attending the transaction, on -which it is now unnecessary to dilate, were, as there is good to believe, -industriously concealed. (From American State Papers, Foreign Relations, -Volume III, page 721.)</p> -<p>The reply of the American Commissioners is quoted on <a href="#Page_26">page 26</a> of this -volume.</p> -<p>(Author’s note: From the foregoing we can better understand the refusal -of the British Commissioners to discuss the northern boundary of -Louisiana as proposed in American note of November 10. See <a href="#Page_26">page 26</a>, -this volume.)</p> -<h3>THE UTI POSSIDETIS PROPOSAL.</h3> -<p>The note of the British Commissioners, October 21, 1814, contained the -following paragraph:</p> -<div class="pb" id="Page_47">47</div> -<p>In regard to other boundaries, the American plenipotentiaries, in their -note of August 24, appeared in some measure to object to the propositions -then made by the undersigned, as not being on the basis of uti possidetis. -The undersigned are willing to treat on that basis, subject to such modifications -as mutual convenience may be found to require; and they trust that -the American plenipotentiaries will show, by their ready acceptance of this -basis, that they duly appreciate the moderation of His Majesty’s Government -in so far consulting the honor and fair pretensions of the United -States as, in the relative situation of the two countries, to authorize such a -proposition. (From American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume -III.)</p> -<p>(Author’s note: This is an adroit effort to put upon the Americans the -initial suggestion of the Uti Possidetis. The Americans, after seeing the -futility of any treaty agreement as to impressment and trade restriction, -adhered steadily to the Status Quo Ante Bellum basis. They rejected the -Uti Possidetis principle. It should be borne in mind that at the time of -the above note the secret expedition against Louisiana, assembling in -Nigril Bay, Jamaica, was nearing completion.)</p> -<h3>TIME OF EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATY.</h3> -<p>On November 10, 1814, the American Commissioners submitted a -<span class="u"><i>projet</i></span> of a treaty containing in article one the statement that “All hostilities, -both by sea and land, shall immediately cease,” and in article fifteen -the statement that “This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on -both sides, and the respective ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be -binding upon both parties, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at -______ in the space of ______ months from -this day, or sooner if possible.”</p> -<p>On November 26 the British Commissioners returned the <span class="u"><i>projet</i></span>, altered -to read that “All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease after the -exchange of ratifications as hereafter mentioned,” and that “This treaty, -when the same shall have ratified on both sides, and the ratifications mutually -exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and the ratifications shall -be exchanged at Washington with all practical despatch, in the space of -______ months from this day, or sooner if practicable.”</p> -<p>On November 30, 1814, the American Commissioners stated in a note -to the British Commissioners:</p> -<p>The undersigned consent that the day of the exchange of the ratifications -be substituted to that of the signature of the treaty as the time for the -cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the periods after which prizes -at sea shall be restored; it being understood that measures shall be adopted -for a speedy exchange of ratifications. (American State Papers, Foreign -Relations, Volume III.)</p> -<p>(Author’s note: It will thus be seen that the British proposed the date -of ratification as the time of the effectiveness of the treaty, and the cessation -of hostilities, and that the Americans consented, thus carrying into -the treaty the provision so uniformly overlooked by our historians.)</p> -<h3>PASSAMAQUODDY ISLANDS.</h3> -<p>(Author’s note: There was towards the end of the negotiations at Ghent -much and voluminous correspondence, mainly on the part of the British, -<span class="pb" id="Page_48">48</span> -concerning the question involved in the Passamaquoddy Islands situation; -it was magnified, admittedly, out of proportion to the subject involved, -especially in view of the fact that the final disposition of these fisheries -was relegated to a civil commission to meet after peace. The British, -while conceding the relative insignificance of the islands, maintained that -a question of honor was involved which might “prove an insuperable bar -to the conclusion of peace at the present time.” In reading the mass of -British correspondence on the subject of these islands one is forced to the -conclusion that there was an underlying purpose.)</p> -<h3>AS TO WORDING IN MUTUAL RESTORATION CLAUSE.</h3> -<p>The American <span class="u"><i>projet</i></span> of November 10 contained also the proposition -that all territory, places, and possessions “taken by either party from the -other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this -treaty, shall be restored.”</p> -<p>The <span class="u"><i>projet</i></span> returned on November 26 by the British Commissioners -was altered to read all territory, places, and possessions, “belonging to -either party and taken by the other during the war, or which may be taken -after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored.”</p> -<p>The protocol of a conference of the American and British Commissioners, -held on December 1, contained the following statements:</p> -<p>At a conference held this day, the American plenipotentiaries proposed -the following alterations in their <span class="u"><i>projet</i></span>, as amended by the British plenipotentiaries: -1st—In article I, strike out the alteration consisting of the -words “belonging to,” and “taken by,” and preserve the original reading, -viz: “taken by either party from the other.”</p> -<p>This alteration was objected to by the British plenipotentiaries, and, -after some discussion, reserved by them for the consideration of their Government. -(Ibid., pages 735, 742.)</p> -<p>(Author’s note: The American Commissioners stated in a note December -14, to the British Commissioners that they agreed to accept the British -proposal to “omit the words originally offered by them,” provided that the -Passamaquoddy Islands should alone be excepted from the mutual restoration -of territory. See American State Papers, Volume III, pages 743, -744, for full text of note. Also for text of letter from British Commissioners -to British Government as of December 13, see Photostat in Library of -Congress from Public Record Office, London—Foreign Office 5, Vol. 102. -Thus in the mutual restoration clause of the treaty the words “all places, -points, and ‘possessions’ whatsoever,” went in, without the clarifying term -as to “possessions” proposed by the British. Did the British Government -deem the clarification essential? Evidence, too strong for disbelief, shows it -did not. The secret expedition against Louisiana was then well on its way, -and expected to be in possession of New Orleans any day, with the full -set of civil officers, carried on Admiral Cochran’s fleet, installed and in -control. Evidence has been given showing the anxiety of British officials, -after the signing of the treaty, as to its ratification by President Madison. -If the British plans against Louisiana had succeeded would President -Madison have ratified the treaty? That is a fair question for College debate.)</p> -<h2>Transcriber’s Notes</h2> -<ul><li>Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook is public-domain in the country of publication.</li> -<li>Silently corrected palpable typos; left non-standard spellings and dialect unchanged.</li> -<li>In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.</li></ul> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Battle of New Orleans, by Reau Estes Folk - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS *** - -***** This file should be named 52355-h.htm or 52355-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/2/3/5/52355/ - -Produced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/52355-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/52355-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index eeaee9c..0000000 --- a/old/52355-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52355.txt b/old/52355.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 922d15c..0000000 --- a/old/52355.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2548 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Battle of New Orleans, by Reau Estes Folk - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Battle of New Orleans - Its Real Meaning - -Author: Reau Estes Folk - -Release Date: June 17, 2016 [EBook #52355] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ASCII - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS *** - - - - -Produced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - - - - - - - - - - BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS - ITS REAL MEANING - - - Exposure of Untruth Being Taught Young America - -_Concerning the Second Most Important Military Event in the Life of the - Republic._ - - - _By_ Reau E. Folk, - _Chairman Tennessee Commission of Research as to the True Value of the - Victory at New Orleans._ - - - - - DEDICATION - - - _This Volume Is Dedicated To:_ - - _The State of Tennessee, which authorized the Investigation;_ - - _The Ladies' Hermitage Association, charged with primary duty of - preserving the home of Andrew Jackson, whose military genius, courage, - and patriotism saved the nation in the second War of Independence;_ - -_The Descendants of the Soldiers who fought at New Orleans, whose memory - should always be cherished; and_ - -_The noble band of School Teachers everywhere, whose high impulse is to - impart the truth._ - - _REAU E. FOLK._ - -_Nashville, Tenn._ - - - Copyright, 1935, Reau E. Folk - - Published by Ladies' Hermitage Association, Nashville, Tenn. - Limited Edition - Cullom & Ghertner, Publishers, Nashville, Tenn. - - - - - COMMISSION REPORT - - -Below is given report to the Governor of Tennessee by the author of this -volume as chairman of the authorized Tennessee Committee of Research. -Attached are letters of concurrence from two of his associate members. -The remaining member is out of the country. Documents have been sent to -him, but at the time of this printing sufficient time has not elapsed to -hear from him. In a later edition his comments will be given. - - - NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE - To His Excellency, The Honorable Hill McAllister, - Governor of Tennessee. - -Sir: - -The General Assembly of Tennessee of 1927 adopted the following joint -resolution: - -WHEREAS, the Battle of New Orleans, fought on January 8, 1815, is one of -the outstanding military events of American History; and, - -WHEREAS, the memory of the great American victory achieved there, is -especially cherished by Tennesseans because of Andrew Jackson, and the -other Tennesseans who therein immortalized themselves; and, - -WHEREAS, school histories, adopted for and taught in our schools, convey -the impression that the battle was a needless one in that it occurred -fifteen days after the Treaty of Peace had been signed at Ghent, -Belgium, by the Commissioners representing the United States and -England; and, - -WHEREAS, serious criticism is made that such textbooks present an -erroneous appraisement of the value of the battle, by omitting the -reference to an essential fact, to-wit: that England did not construe -the Peace Treaty of Ghent as applicable to Louisiana, for the reason -that she held as invalid the title of the United States to that Domain, -conveyed by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803; and, - -WHEREAS, it is of prime importance that our school children should -receive every essential truth from historical textbooks, and especially -those textbooks placed in the hands of Tennessee students should portray -in its true significance the Battle of New Orleans in which the -ancestors of so many were engaged; now, - -THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives -concurring, that the Governor be, and is hereby empowered and -authorized, to appoint five, or in discretion seven, persons of known -historical knowledge and research, who shall constitute a Commission, -charged with the duty of carefully examining the authorities, touching -the true value of the Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, 1815; -and, - -Said Commission shall incorporate its conclusions and recommendations in -a report to the Governor who shall transmit the same to the Legislature. - -Under the above resolution the following were appointed: Reau E. Folk, -Chairman; John Trotwood Moore; John H. DeWitt; Claude G. Bowers; John S. -Kendall. - -The chairman, by reason of partial business retirement, has been able to -devote himself assiduously to the research work involved. The result of -his research, compiled into a small volume, accompanies this report. - -At the outset the writer wishes to say he has had no opportunity for -conference with the full Commission, but has had the benefit of -consultation with Messrs. Moore and DeWitt, both of whom were very -co-operative. The first named, the late John Trotwood Moore, State -Historian, condensed his conclusion into a sentence, which is here given -because he is no longer with us to speak for himself. He said: "The -Battle of New Orleans saved the Louisiana Purchase, or another war with -England." Judge John H. DeWitt, President of the Tennessee Historical -Society, has given much valuable and sympathetic aid. - -The small volume herewith submitted gives exact quotations concerning -the Battle of New Orleans from all histories under adoption as textbooks -for the public schools of Tennessee. All of these present the same -viewpoint, to-wit: that the battle was an unnecessary one; that it was -fought after peace had been made. These researches show conclusively -that all these books are in error. The battle was NOT fought after -peace. - -These researches have uncovered a startling, astounding fact--startling -and astounding because that fact has been consistently ignored or -overlooked by historians. That fact appears in the wording of the Ghent -Treaty itself, which says in plain language that peace shall be -effective when the treaty shall have been ratified by both sides! It was -ratified by the United States February 17, 1815, forty days after the -Battle of New Orleans! - -Hence it must be patent to all that the statement, that the battle -occurred after peace made so persistently by historians, is an obvious -untruth, based on false assumption of fact. The wording of the treaty, -appearing in the volume herewith, has been verified from the treaty -itself on file in the State Department at Washington. - -If the issue of the battle had been different, it is a matter for fair -speculation as to whether or not the treaty would have been ratified by -the United States. The Administration would have been torn between the -ominous threats of the northeastern states on the one hand, and on the -other by British occupancy of the vast territory west of the Mississippi -River, with civil government set up. Happily this grave situation was -averted by the great victory, news of which reached Washington ten days -before the treaty. - -In the volume herewith there is presented well authenticated evidence -leading to the irresistable deduction that it was England's purpose -after capturing to retain the great Louisiana Domain, on the ground of -the invalidity of the U. S. title acquired from Napoleon in 1803. Among -other indications of England's attitude there are exhibited copies of -records during the negotiations at Ghent taken from the archives of the -State Department at Washington. - -The chairman, as the compiler of the volume referred to, hopes it will -be carefully read by all interested in truth of history, not only in -Tennessee, but in the nation. - -The writer, in obedience to the Legislative resolution under which he -was appointed, herewith asks leave to report as his findings as to the -true value of the Battle of New Orleans the following: - -1st: It did not occur after peace as erroneously is stated by school and -other histories; it occurred during a state of war between the United -States and England; - -2nd: It was a necessary battle, made so by the aggressions of England; -in addition to its national necessity, it was as necessary as would be -the defense by a citizen of his home and family from marauders; - -3rd: It was a major military event in the life of the Republic, second -only to Yorktown; - -4th: It saved the Louisiana Purchase, or prolongation of existing war, -or another war with England; or acquiescense in the Mississippi River as -our western boundary; - -5th: It established wholesome respect of U. S. sovereignty by Great -Britain, marking the last armed conflict between these two powers, -between which a solid peace has existed ever since; - -6th: It created profound impression throughout the world, with -consequent greater respect and security of the Republic among her sister -nations; - -7th: It restored national self respect, then at its lowest ebb. - -In submitting the result of this research the writer earnestly -recommends to the Governor and the General Assembly that proper and -decisive steps be taken to the end that our school children may be -taught the truth as to the value of the great victory in which -Tennesseans of another age played a leading part, and which contributed -so much to the destinies of the nation. - - Respectfully, - Reau E. Folk, _Chairman_, - _Authorized Commission of Research as to Value of Battle of New - Orleans._ - - - December 12, 1934. - -My Dear Mr. Folk: - -I have carefully read and considered the report which you, as Chairman -of the Commission appointed in 1927 to examine the authorities as to the -true value of the Battle of New Orleans, are about to make to the -Governor of Tennessee. Hitherto I have had the privilege of conferring -with you from time to time concerning the important historical question -involved in the investigation. - -I have also read carefully the treatise prepared by you and which -accompanies your report to the Governor. It shows very thorough and -judicious investigation, and in my opinion very sound conclusions. - -I fully concur with you in the conclusions stated in your report, as -well as the reasons therefor which you have therein set forth in lucid -statement. - -I do trust that this valuable work which you have done will be properly -appreciated, and that the errors which have so persistently appeared in -the histories, particularly the school histories, will be duly -corrected, so that the fallacy that the Battle of New Orleans was a -useless battle and fought after the treaty of peace, will no longer be -accepted by anybody, and that truth will be known by all. - - Yours very truly, - John H. DeWitt. - -D-R - - - Tulane University, - New Orleans, La., - December 22, 1934. - -My Dear Mr. Folk: - -I have read with attention your excellent report on the Battle of New -Orleans, to be submitted to the Governor of Tennessee, in conjunction -with the report of our commission on the subject. I have ventured to -indicate by question marks in two or three places phrases or statements -which I think could be changed to advantage. These, however, are merely -questions of verbiage, not of fact. In point of fact, I think you have -made a most interesting and important assemblage of the essential points -to be considered in connection with the Battle of New Orleans, and have -shown conclusively that the opinion so frequently expressed by -historians, that the battle was unnecessary, is a sentimental inaccuracy -which ought to be corrected. You have done a useful and important piece -of work, and I congratulate you upon its completion. - -May I beg you to be good enough to favor me with a copy when the work is -printed? I should like to prepare a review of it for one of our local -newspapers. - - Yours very truly, - John S. Kendall. - - - - - _Details of Research_ - - - Crusade Sword. - - Voltaire, French Cynic, Is Quoted as Saying That History Is Made Up of - Lies Agreed Upon. Here Is One Almost Agreed Upon, Now Overhauled and - Exposed. - - - Louisiana Domain. - -The Louisiana spoken of in this volume refers to the great Louisiana -Domain purchased by President Jefferson from France in 1803. That -original Domain now comprehends all or most of sixteen states, as -follows: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, -Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South -Dakota, Washington and Wyoming. - - - - - CHAPTER I. - An Interview Containing an Outline. - - -It was the 8th of January. I sat down for lunch at a small table in a -Nashville hotel. Presently the head waiter conducted to a seat opposite -me a young man, seemingly about 22 years of age. He was a handsome, -wholesome looking young man, and had an air of self-reliance. He -impressed me at first sight as being a typical young American; at any -rate he was decidedly attractive to the narrator, whose grey head could -but reveal his advanced years. - -While awaiting the lunches, a casual remark about the weather opened -conversation. A waiter brought an afternoon paper. On the front page was -a picture of Andrew Jackson, and big headlines over accounts of -celebrations in memory of the victory at New Orleans in 1815. - -The young man, with the superiority of youthful knowledge, exclaimed: - -"Why all this to-do about a battle which was a needless one? It was a -brilliant victory, and salved American pride at the time; but that is -now four generations in the past. We should not go on salving our pride -over a useless victory, and especially when it was over a country now -our strong and perpetual friend. We don't need anything to boost our -pride any more. We are now the greatest nation on earth." - -While responding to the fervor in the young man's last sentence, I felt -a kind of joy in his prelude, which I knew was based on history that I -knew to be false. - -In brief explanation, let me say that for some years, I have been -engaged in research work as to the true value of the battle of New -Orleans, resulting in the conviction that the current appraisal in -school histories is entirely erroneous. I therefore welcomed the -opportunity to develop the truth to this typical young American. I -decided upon the gradual approach rather than a frontal attack, which -might result in amour propre resentment. - -I said in a casual tone: - -"Permit me to take issue with you. Suppose I should tell you that the -Battle of New Orleans was not a needless battle; that it was, in fact, -the second most important military event in the life of our republic? -Suppose I should say to you that it was not fought after peace, but -during war?" - -The young man looked at me, first with a show of impatience, and then -with a tolerant air. - -"My only answer," he returned, "is that you haven't read our modern -histories. I have. The Peace Treaty of Ghent was signed Christmas Eve, -1814. Sailing vessels were the quickest means of communication at that -time, and so it was more than six weeks before the news reached our -people. During that interim the Battle of New Orleans was fought. So you -see it was quite useless except as a contribution to American pride." - -"Have you read that treaty?" I asked. - -"Sure," he responded, "that is, I have read several reliable digests. -They all say the treaty was silent as to Impressment and Orders in -Council, which caused our declaration of war, and that it amounted to a -simple agreement to stop fighting and go back to the status before the -war." - -As I was calculating on my next move the young man resumed: - -"We had a debate at school last year on the question, 'Resolved, that -the United States won the War of 1812.' I took the ground that it was a -draw, and my side won. So you can see that I am well posted on that -war." - -He had a polite, patronizing air, and this decided me upon a direct -blow. - -"I thank you," said I; "I have also closely studied the events of this -War of 1812. I have read some more or less superficial comments on the -Peace Treaty of Ghent. I have also read the Treaty itself, word by word. -In precise specific terms, that document stipulated that it was not to -be effective until ratified by both sides." - -The young man gave an inquiring look, and commented: - -"That of course is important, if true." - -"It is true," I replied. "You can verify the fact in fifteen minutes. A -few blocks from where we sit is a Carnegie Library in which you can find -a volume containing various treaties of the United States. The Treaty of -Ghent is among them. It is called the Treaty of Amity." - -"May I ask who you are?" questioned the young man, with a changed and -puzzled mien. - -"I am a member of the Committee appointed by the State to make research -into the real value of the Battle of New Orleans." - -"I am delighted to know you," said the young man. "I love to discuss -history, which reveals the foundation of our existing social structure. -There are some questions I would like to ask of you. First, since the -Treaty was eventually ratified, aren't our historians while technically -wrong, in saying the Battle of New Orleans occurred after Peace, and was -a useless battle, really in the right, for the reason that the battle -really had no effect upon the Peace Treaty?" - -"It is true," I replied, "the Treaty adopted at Ghent, Dec. 24, 1814, -was ratified soon after its reception in Washington, and promulgated the -next day, Feb. 18, 1815. That was after the news of the victory at New -Orleans had reached Washington. - -"But suppose the result at New Orleans had been different, would -President Madison have signed the Treaty? - -"That is a real question for college debate. It is a question calculated -to bring sharply to the student the picture of the distracted condition -of our country at the time. By signing the treaty Madison would have -appeased the New England section, then in hostile and threatening -attitude, but at the same time would have faced the surrender of the -territory west of the Mississippi for all time, or faced future -negotiation or war. By refusing to sign, the President would have -prolonged the war with its uncertainties. At the same time he would have -confronted possible disunion through the open disaffection of the -northeastern states. The English government construed the disaffection -as a threat of secession. - -"It was planned by that calculating government, as evidence shows, to -inveigle New England into a separate treaty in case after British -capture and occupation of New Orleans, Madison should refuse to ratify -the Ghent treaty. Thus, if the issue in that New Orleans affair had been -different, President Madison would have faced danger of disunion, on one -side or the other. - -"It would be hard to conceive of a graver situation. All this was -averted, and gloriously averted, by the victory at New Orleans, the news -of which caused the treaty to be joyfully ratified." - -"Haven't you overdrawn the picture?" asked the young man. "Isn't it a -fact that the treaty provided for the return of all territory taken -during the war, so that, if the English had captured New Orleans they -would have given it up?" - -"My dear young friend," I replied, "I have not overdrawn the picture. -The mutual restoration clause provided that all territory, places and -possessions, taken by either, were to be returned at effective peace. -Bear in mind that England had never conceded the validity of our title -to the Louisiana Domain, and so if the carefully planned design to -capture it had been successful, England was in position to hold that she -did not regard it as a legal possession of the United States, and as not -subject to return under the Peace Treaty. It is a violence to -credibility to suppose that England, after finally dispatching the big -expedition against Louisiana, would within a few weeks thereafter, agree -to a peace treaty, recalling her troops from an anticipated successful -conquest. In the light of present knowledge, the peace proceedings show -a studied purpose to protect the expedition sent out to capture New -Orleans. The supposition, advanced by many historians, that if England -had captured New Orleans, she would have given it up, is a reflection -upon the intelligence of the English government of that period, and -really, ascribes to that government egregious asininity. Now, with all -of her blunders, England has never been asinine." - -The young man listened intently, gave an inhaled "Oh," and then added: - -"I begin to see; but there are some questions I want to ask. First, when -and why and how did this error get in history?" - -"A natural inquiry," I responded. "I cannot definitely answer, nor is a -definite answer vital. However, I will give one conjecture; Jackson -became a national figure as a result of the Battle of New Orleans. While -acclaimed by the masses, Jackson had many bitter enemies, some of them -in the history writing class. Prejudice may have caused disparagement of -the importance of the event upon which his national fame is founded. But -all that is of small importance beside the establishment of the actual -truth, that the battle was not fought after peace, but that it was -necessary to prevent England's conquest of Louisiana. Thus, as I have -said before, the Battle was the second most important military event in -the life of the Republic." - -"Now my other questions," said the young man; "why has such an error -been allowed to go unchallenged all these generations?" - -"Another natural question," I answered. "It is a question that must come -to every mind in approaching this matter of clarification. I am not able -to answer this question definitely, just as I was not able to answer -your other question with any degree of certainty. The answer is not -vital, except from the standpoint of the problem involved, of overcoming -the inertia of a long-enthroned lie. My conjecture is that the false -appraisal began when civil upheaval was imminent, and when most people -were thinking only of the present--a state of mind which was continued -for a long time. So the viewpoint of prejudice, unopposed, gradually -crept into accepted history. There have been, and are, students of -history adhering to the great fact that the Battle of New Orleans saved -the Louisiana purchase, or another war with England. But school -histories continue to purvey the false viewpoint to the youth of the -land. But 'truth is mighty and will prevail,' and the time has now -come." - -At this point a bell boy brought me a card, and I arose to bid goodbye -to my young friend, saying; - -"They have come for me, to go to the Hermitage for the exercises being -held there today." - -The young man said: - -"I wish it were so you could take me." - -I arranged to do so, very much pleased at this change in his attitude. - - - - - CHAPTER II. - Containing a High Commission and an Indictment. - - -There is no nobler calling than that of the school teachers of America, -who are ministering to the instruction and development of the future -citizens and leaders of the Republic. These teachers are bound to be -deeply concerned when they find that through school histories furnished -them, they have been imparting a falsehood about an important event in -United States history--the Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, -1815. These school histories minimize the value of the battle, -describing it as needless, because fought after peace, when as a fact, -the battle was not fought after peace, and the victory, in fact, -prevented a carefully planned conquest of the then lately acquired -Louisiana Domain, with all the attendant, untoward complications, -another war being one of them. - -It is the purpose of this volume to show by reliable authorities, the -truth as to the value of this battle. - -History, as is well known, is honey-combed with lies, originally -projected either in ignorance, prejudice or adulation. We are always -fortunate if able to arrest and correct one before too late. - -The Legislature of Tennessee, at its session of 1927, adopted the -following resolution: - -"WHEREAS, the Battle of New Orleans, fought on January 8, 1815, is one -of the outstanding military events of American History; and, - -"WHEREAS, the memory of the great American victory achieved there, is -especially cherished by Tennesseans because of Andrew Jackson, and the -other Tennesseans who therein immortalized themselves; and, - -"WHEREAS, school histories, adopted for and taught in our schools, -convey the impression that the battle was a needless one in that it -occurred fifteen days after the treaty of Peace had been signed at -Ghent, Belgium, by the Commissioners representing the United States and -England; and, - -"WHEREAS, serious criticism is made that such textbooks present an -erroneous appraisement of the value of the battle, by omitting the -reference to an essential fact, to-wit: that England did not construe -the Peace Treaty of Ghent as applicable to Louisiana, for the reason -that she held as invalid the title of the United States to that Domain, -conveyed by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803; and, - -"WHEREAS, it is of prime importance that our school children should -receive every essential truth from historical textbooks, and especially -those textbooks placed in the hands of Tennessee students should portray -in its true significance the battle of New Orleans in which the -ancestors of so many were engaged; Now, - -"THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives -concurring, that the Governor be, and is hereby empowered and -authorized, to appoint five, or in his discretion seven, persons of -known historical knowledge and research, who shall constitute a -Commission, charged with the duty of carefully examining the -authorities, touching the true value of the Battle of New Orleans, -fought January 8, 1815; and, - -"Said Commission shall incorporate its conclusions and recommendations -in a report to the Governor who shall transmit the same to the -Legislature." - -The present writer, who was appointed a member of the authorized -Committee, has been engaged in making research into the matter involved, -and has found facts, not hard of access, which should, and will, when -understood, force a radical revision of school histories in the version -they present as to the value of the New Orleans victory. - -Other members of the Commission appointed by the Governor were: John H. -DeWitt, of Nashville, Judge of the Tennessee Court of Appeals and -president of the Tennessee Historical Society; John Trotwood Moore, of -Nashville, State Librarian and historian; Claude G. Bowers, New York, -author, historian, and editor--now ambassador to Spain; John S. Kendall, -of New Orleans, historian and professor in Tulane University. - -It is the purpose of the writer, after submission for comment to his -distinguished fellow Committeemen, to make this volume the basis of -report to the Governor of Tennessee for transmission to the Legislature. - -In order to present, in as simple a way as possible, the case, or the -indictment, for such it is, actual and authenticated excerpts are given -herewith from all the American histories prescribed for Tennessee Public -Schools by the State Text Book Commission. - -These extracts were obtained from the office of the Secretary of State, -where under statute, copies of all adopted text books are kept. - - - - - CHAPTER III. - What School Histories Teach. - - -Here are the extracts from the Tennessee authorized school Histories: - -School History of Tennessee: S. E. Scates, page 225: - -"Though the battle resulted in great victory for the Americans, it was -sad indeed that so many brave men lost their lives at New Orleans quite -uselessly. At Ghent, Belgium, a treaty of peace for the war of 1812 had -been signed Christmas Eve, 1814. Because messages travelled so slowly, -by sailing vessels, news of peace did not reach New Orleans until after -the fighting had taken place." - - -A History of American Government and Culture: Harold Rugg, page 192: - -"Two weeks after the Treaty of Peace had been signed, another battle was -fought. This may seem strange to you, but in those days transportation -and communication was so slow that news of the making of peace reached -the country long after it had happened." - - -History of the United States: Beard & Beard, page 238: - -"The Treaty of Peace. Both countries were in truth sick of a war that -offered neither glory nor profit. So after an exchange of notes they -sent representatives to Ghent to discuss a settlement. Long negotiations -were finally ended by an agreement on Christmas Eve, 1814, a few days -before Jackson's victory at New Orleans. When the treaty reached America -the people were surprised to find it said nothing about the seizure of -American sailors, the destruction of American trade, the searching for -American ships, or the support of Indians on the frontier. Nevertheless, -we are told, the public 'passed from gloom to glory' on the arrival of -the news of peace. Bells were rung; schools were closed; flags were -displayed; and many a rousing toast was drunk in taverns and private -homes. The rejoicing could continue. With Napoleon definitely beaten at -Waterloo in June, 1815, Great Britain had no more need to impress -sailors, search ships, and seize American goods bound to the Continent. -Once more the terrible sea power sank into the background and the ocean -was again white with the sails of merchantmen." - - -History of the American People: Latane, page 284: - -"Jackson's brilliant victory at the Battle of New Orleans caused great -rejoicing throughout the country, but it did not affect the outcome of -the war, for the treaty of peace had been signed at Ghent two weeks -before it was fought. Its effect on the course of American history, -however, was far-reaching, for it brought the West into greater -prominence and made Andrew Jackson the military hero and political -leader of that section." - - -A History of the People of the United States: Waddy Thompson, page 220: - -"Treaty of Peace; Results of the War: The great victory of New Orleans -was won after peace had been made. A treaty had been signed at Ghent, -Belgium, on December 24, 1814. But as only sailing vessels then crossed -the ocean, and as about six weeks were required for the voyage, news of -peace did not reach America until February, 1815." - - -First Book in United States History: Waddy Thompson, page 253: - -"A Victory after Peace: Brilliant as was the victory at New Orleans, it -was won after peace had been made between the United States and Great -Britain. Both sides having become tired of the War, a treaty of peace -was signed in Belgium in December, 1814; while the Battle of New Orleans -was fought on January 8, 1815. Steamboats did not then cross the Ocean, -and no electric cable connected America with Europe, so news of the -treaty did not reach America until a month after the Battle of New -Orleans." - - -The American People: Muzzey, page 218: - -"Jackson, henceforth, the 'Hero of New Orleans' was rewarded in the -following years by the command against the Indians of Florida (1817), -the governorship of Florida territory (1821); a seat in the United -States Senate (1823), and the Presidency of the United States (1829). If -the Atlantic cable had existed in 1814, it would have brought the news -of the treaty of peace in time to turn Pakenham's expedition back from -the Mississippi, to prevent the bloodiest battle that had ever been -fought on American soil, and perhaps to keep from the pages of American -history the administration of the most masterful of our Presidents -between Washington and Lincoln." - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - Falsehood Shown by the Records. - - -The unanimity of view presented by these extracts from Tennessee adopted -histories, gives justification for the assumption that the same view -obtains throughout the United States. In partial extenuation of school -historians and of Textbook Commissions, it may be said that they have -followed the lead of most generally recognized historians. But any -trusting follower of the pack leaders could have ascertained, without -much trouble, that the battle of New Orleans was NOT fought after peace. -It occurred fifteen days after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed by -the Commissioners of the two interested nations, but expressly, by the -terms of that treaty, it was not to be effective until ratified by both -sides and ratification exchanged in Washington. - -Let us go to specific quotations. The Peace Treaty of Ghent, dated -December 24, 1814, contained, as its first sentence, the following -words: "All hostilities, both by sea and by land shall cease as soon as -this treaty shall be ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned." - -Article XI of the Treaty reads: "This Treaty, when the same shall be -ratified on both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting -parties, and the ratification mutually exchanged, shall be binding on -both parties; and the ratification shall be exchanged at Washington, in -the space of four months from this date, or sooner if practicable." - -Further, the record shows that ratification of the Treaty was advised by -the United States Senate, February 16, 1815; that it was ratified -February 17; and ratification exchanged the same day, and that it was -promulgated February 18th. - -The Treaty of Ghent, called the Treaty of Amity, is preserved, of -course, among American State papers. A copy may be found in a public -library in a volume devoted to Treaties, Agreements, Etc. between the U. -S. A. and other Powers, Compiled by W. M. Maloy, Under Resolution of U. -S. Senate of Jan. 18, 1909. - -A lawyer friend of the writer, with whom he discussed the situation, -suggested that while manifestly in error in representing the Battle as -having been fought after peace, that a plea in abatement might be -offered for the historians to the effect that the treaty was -subsequently ratified as written; that the Battle of New Orleans had no -effect upon the Treaty; that it further was needless because if its -issue had been different the British under the mutual restoration clause -of the Ghent Treaty would, upon promulgation of the Treaty, have -evacuated New Orleans and Louisiana. - -That viewpoint is entitled to such consideration as should be given any -viewpoint based solely on assumption, but it and all such viewpoints -must be subjected to acid judgment based on co-related facts. - -As to the first point above made, it is a matter of record that the -treaty was ratified quickly after reaching Washington; it is also a -matter of record that the news of the great American victory at New -Orleans reached the Capitol ten days before. As to the second point, -that the battle had no effect upon the treaty, a wide range of -discussion, based on records, is opened, which will be presented later. - -As to the third point, that the battle was needless because, if -successful, the British would have evacuated New Orleans and Louisiana -upon promulgation of the Peace Treaty, it may be stated here that the -records which will be presently laid before the reader give decided -negation to that assumption. - -The writer boldly avers, as supported truth, that the British -Government, never having acknowledged the validity of the title of the -United States to Louisiana, secretly dispatched the big expedition -against New Orleans with one hand, while directing peace negotiations -with the other; that it was the British purpose to seize and hold -Louisiana, nominally in the name of Spain; and that the British -Government would never have agreed to a peace treaty, which did not -contain a clause, no matter how subtly garbed, that would not give -justification to the British retention of Louisiana. - -However, before going into the matter of citations of authorities and -records, it is due to the reader to present something of the English -attitude at the time, so that he may see more clearly and with more -understanding its actions. That can best be done by brief picture of the -background of that period. - - - - - CHAPTER V. - Background--Louisiana. - - -The great domain, christened Louisiana, was taken over by La Salle in -1682, in the name of France. It remained under French dominion until -1763, when, as a result of French-English wars, France retired from the -New World. It seemed inevitable that Louisiana, great unexplored -trans-river territory, would fall into English hands. But France ceded -Louisiana to Spain, then still a world power. In 1800 Napoleon Bonaparte -caused Spain to re-cede Louisiana to France. In 1803 Bonaparte sold -Louisiana to the United States. He was about to engage in war with -England, and historians generally agree that the sale to United States -was made because he recognized the difficulty of defending the remote -territory against the English Navy. The British Encyclopedia says the -sale was made to keep Louisiana from falling into English hands. Thus it -appears, that England was justified in feeling that Louisiana for the -second time had been maneuvered from her ownership. - -References without number may be given from histories covering that -period. The writer has before him James G. Blaine's "Twenty Years in -Congress," which in Chapter 1 of the first volume (pages 3 to 13) deals -comprehensively with the relation of the Louisiana purchase to the early -days of the Republic. Some key quotations are here presented: "She -(France) in 1763, now gave up Canada and Cape Breton, acknowledged the -sovereignty of Great Britain in the original thirteen colonies as -extending to the Mississippi, and, by a separate treaty, surrendered -Louisiana on the west side of the Mississippi, with New Orleans on the -east side, to Spain. She (Spain) continued in possession of Louisiana -until the year 1800, when Bonaparte concluded a Treaty ..., by which the -entire territory was retroceded to France." - -Again, Mr. Blaine says: "Fearing that in the threatening conflict (1803) -England, by her superior Naval force, would deprive him of his newly -acquired colonial empire, and greatly enhance her own prestige by -securing all the American possessions, which France had owned prior to -1763, Bonaparte, by a dash in diplomacy, as quick and as brilliant as -his tactics on the field of battle, placed Louisiana beyond the reach of -the British power. In a tone of vehemence and passion he said: 'I know -the full value of Louisiana. A few lines of a treaty have restored it to -me, and now I must expect to lose it. The English expect to take -possession of it, and it is thus they will begin the war. They have -already twenty ships of the line in the Gulf of Mexico. The conquest of -Louisiana will be easy. I have not a moment to lose in putting it out of -their reach. The English have successively taken from France the -Canadas, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the richest portion -of Asia. But they shall not have the Mississippi, which they covet.'" - -Again quoting from Blaine: "England's acquisition of Louisiana would -have proved in the highest degree embarrassing, if not disastrous to the -Union. No colonial acquisition ever made by her on any continent has -been so profitable to her commerce, and so strengthening to her military -position, as that of Louisiana would have proved. The fact was clearly -seen by Bonaparte when he hastily made the treaty ceding it to the -United States." - -Again Blaine: "The conflict of arms (War of 1812) did not occur until -nine years after; and it is a curious and not unimportant fact, that the -most notable defeat of the British troops in the second war of -independence, as the struggle of 1812 has been well named, occurred on -the soil of the territory for whose protection the original precaution -had been taken by Jefferson." - -The reader will find all of the chapter referred to very interesting as -indeed will be any chapter devoted to our sudden acquisition of the -immense domain called Louisiana. - -The striking sentences quoted above serve to emphasize the fact that it -would not have been unnatural for England to have felt resentment at -this second maneuvering of a vast territory from her grasp. Some -historians have expressed surprise that England did not at once -undertake to take Louisiana, the United States notwithstanding. That -would have meant armed conflict with America at a time of the war in -Europe. Besides, and this is a deduction of the present writer, such a -course would have placed upon England the onus before the world of a war -of conquest in the western continent. So England waited. - -An additional viewpoint is here presented: In the history of the United -States of America, by Henry W. Elson, under the caption "Louisiana" -(Vol. 2, page 230) appears the following paragraph (page 233): "Actual -possession soon placed our title to Louisiana beyond dispute; but -strictly speaking, the sale was not legal. Napoleon had agreed to convey -to Spain a dukedom on the Arno River, for the son-in-law of the Spanish -King, in payment for Louisiana; but the price was never paid. The treaty -of Ildefonso also stipulated that France should never cede the territory -to any foreign power; but Napoleon disregarded this. In point of fact, -France, therefore, did not own Louisiana; and even if she had owned it, -the cession, according to the French Constitution, could not be made -without the consent of the Chamber of Deputies, and this the First -Consul never obtained and never sought. The French people were -astonished at this action of their ruler; but he was a master, and they -were powerless. Far sadder was the wail from Spain. The Spanish -Government protested briefly, pathetically; but its voice was not -heard." - -From the above quotation the reader can appreciate England's attitude, -as to the legality of the United States' title to Louisiana, maintained -until January 8, 1815, when the highest law known to nations dissipated -that attitude forever. - -There are doubtless many today, as we bask in the enjoyment of National -security and other national blessings, who do not appreciate the -vastness, the importance, of the Louisiana domain, the acquisition of -which Dr. Sloane of Princeton says translated our young republic into a -world power. According to an early authority the domain comprised -829,987 square miles, and by later authority over a million square -miles. In the Louisiana Purchase territory are today comprehended the -following states: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, -Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, -South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - Background--Impressment. - - -The impressment policy of the English Government applied to the new -American country, was very galling. Under that policy American ships -were stopped on the high seas, and seamen taken from them under guise of -being British deserters. Many good Americans were forced into British -service. The young victim country protested. In 1801 the impressment -practice fell off and seemingly was abandoned. (See Elson's History of -the U. S., pages 246 to 252, Vol. 2.) A quotation is given from Elson, -page 247, Vol. 2: "This (impressment) practice had fallen into the -background during the short season of peace between France and England, -that ended in 1803, but with the renewal of the war it had been revived -with alarming vigor." - -Whether that "alarming vigor" was due entirely to war exigencies of -recruiting its Navy, or whether the British Government designed it as a -provocation to the young western Republic, to take the onus of declaring -war, under guise of which the coveted floating title to Louisiana could -be appropriated, is a matter for deduction, not appearing of record. - -At any rate, the impressment practice re-aroused resentment in the young -republic, and that resentment found chief expression in the then -Southwest, resulting under the leadership of that section and over the -opposition of the New England States, or rather of that of the assertive -Federalists therein, in a declaration of war against England, on the -ground of the degradation of our sovereignty. - -It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss the War of 1812, except -as its events may relate to his mission, that of correcting falsehood -and error in the historical books adopted as textbooks for the school -children of America. - -The War of 1812 was heralded as a mistake by the Federalists, opponents -of the then administration. While the incipient Navy gave a brilliant -account of itself, justifying the proud boast that man for man and gun -for gun, the U. S. Navy was the equal of anything afloat, for two and a -half years the record shows that land events in the main were untoward, -climaxed by the capture, and sacking and burning of the public -buildings, of the National Capital in August, 1814, and thus the Federal -Press offensively took the "I-told-you-so" attitude. - -Early in the war the Emperor of Russia extended his good offices as -mediator. The United States Government accepted the offer, being -earnestly desirous of honorable peace, and having nothing to conceal -from neutral investigation. But the English government declined the -Russian offer, indicating that it preferred to treat direct. Later as a -result of British invitation, a Peace Commission met at Ghent, Belgium. - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - Negotiations at Ghent. - - -A separate chapter is devoted to the joint conference at Ghent because -therein is shown the subtle, diplomatically concealed, purpose of the -then English Government. The record of the proceedings of the -conference, in order to be fully understood, should be read in the light -of the afterwards revealed fact that, at the same time these -negotiations were being conducted, the expedition against Louisiana was -secretly planned and dispatched. Things that are puzzling in the making -often become clear in the aftermath. And so it is in this case. - -The defeat and resultant abdication of Napoleon (April 4, 1814) released -England's European troops for pursuing the American war with greater -vigor, and to punish the United States for having declared war at -England's most embarrassing moment. It would not be a violent assumption -to say that at least some members of the British Government felt that -the time was opportune at last to take Louisiana and thus redress a -grievance nurtured since 1803, when Bonaparte snatched that great domain -from England's outstretched hands. - -The exact date on which the Louisiana expedition was determined upon is -not material. Plain evidence discloses that during the joint peace -negotiation its details were arranged and the army sent forward to take -New Orleans. We now know that after the capture of Washington by the -British and the burning and sacking of the public buildings there -(August 24, 1814), the British invading forces, after being later -repulsed in an attack upon Baltimore, repaired under orders to Nigril -Bay, Jamaica, to await recruits for the expedition against New Orleans. -With the time then required for ocean travel, these orders must have -been given prior to, or about the time of the meeting of the Peace -Commissioners at Ghent, August 4, 1814. - -Let us visualize the two groups assembled at Ghent. First, consider the -five Americans. They were earnestly desirous of a quick and honorable -peace. Their country was riven with dissatisfaction produced by a -powerful anti-administration and anti-war party, seemingly in control of -the northeastern states, making dire threats, unless hostilities were -soon ended. - -The American Commissioners were prepared and authorized to forego the -questions of impressment and orders in council, which caused the war, -and conclude a peace pact on the basis of the status before the war. For -a month they had been waiting the coming of the British Commissioners. -It is evident there was a purpose on the part of the British Government -to delay. - -The second group consisted of three suave English Commissioners, who -appeared at Ghent, as before stated, August 4th. - -These English Commissioners began by making, on behalf of their -Government, demands objectionable and humiliating, the discussion of -which, often at long distance with the London Government officials, -consumed time. Finally the American Commissioners were forced to write -to Washington for further instructions. - -From "The Diplomacy of the War of 1812," by Frank A. Updyke, which is a -most valuable account of the Peace conference, quotation is given from -pages 220 and 221. "It was the unanimous opinion of the American -ministers that Great Britain's policy was to consume as much time as -possible before the termination of negotiations, in order that some -decided victory might be gained in the war which would make it easier -for her to insist upon her demands." - -This quotation is given to show that our ministers recognized the -British tactics as sparring for time; but the record does not show that -any one of them thought of New Orleans as the objective point of British -design. - -The records in connection with the negotiations are voluminous, and make -very interesting reading. But viewed in the after revealed facts, the -truth stands out so clearly that the proceedings of the Peace Conference -in English consideration and the secret expedition to capture New -Orleans were so closely inter-related that in arriving at the material -verity, much material in that conference should be disregarded as -intended by the English to delay and becloud, and so matters coming -before the Conference referring to Louisiana should only be considered -in connection with our mission. - -Frank A. Updyke, Ph.D. of Dartmouth College, in his "The Diplomacy of -the War of 1812," quoted from above, has given a condensed, fully -annotated, account of the proceedings of the Peace Conference. It is a -work, published in 1915, which deserves place as a supplementary -textbook in every college and high school. I have made liberal use of -Dr. Updyke's volume, which merits high place for research effort and -reference. - -The Joint Commission had been in session a little over two months when -the first note was struck significant of the British underlying purpose. -It was in the communication of the English Government through their -ministers to the American Commissioners. The document was dated October -8, 1814. (See American State papers.) - -"The first paragraph," says Updyke (page 269), "attempted to show the -illegality of the purchase of Louisiana and the spirit of territorial -aggrandisement on the part of the United States which this act -manifested." - -It might have been inferred that this attack upon the legality of the -title to Louisiana would be followed by a demand of some sort; but no -such demand was made. In fact, the treaty as finally adopted, contained -no mention of Louisiana. - -It is highly pertinent to ask a question as to what was the purpose of -this attack upon the title of Louisiana. All such things have a purpose. - -In the light of present knowledge that purpose is clear. The great -expedition against New Orleans being near completion, it is obvious that -the British Government recognized the good diplomatic position before -the world, after the capture of Louisiana, of showing a record of fair -warning as justification for retention. - -The reply of the Americans to the note of October 8th was dated October -13th. (See American State papers.) - -Quotation is given from Updyke, page 284: - -"While endeavoring to make the reply brief, the American ministers could -not refrain from discussing some other topics adverted to by the British -in their note. The British ministers had made the charge that the -acquisition of Louisiana by the United States was illegal, Spain having -offered a remonstrance against its cession and the right of France to -make it. To this the American note responded that, although the Spanish -minister at Washington had made such remonstrance, at that very time -orders were given by Spain for the delivery of Louisiana to France. So -France was in actual possession of the territory when she disposed of it -to the United States." - -Another matter, although not in chronological turn, may be here -presented, as showing further the English attitude towards Louisiana. In -the course of the note of the Americans to the British, dated November -10, 1814 (see American State papers), Updyke says, page 307: "The -American note refused to consent to the British proposal to fix the -northwest boundary by the line from the lake of the Woods to the -Mississippi unless the boundaries of Louisiana should also be provided -for in the settlement." - -The British ministers in referring the note to their Government, said -they were unwilling to consent to a discussion of the Louisiana -boundary, for their doing so might be taken as a recognition of the -right of the United States to the occupation of the territory. (See -Updyke, page 310.) - -What might be called the Uti Possidetis scheme was embraced in a British -note of October 21st (see American State papers). The British proposed -the Uti Possidetis principle, as a basis of settlement, under which each -side would keep what territory it should be possessed of at the -promulgation of peace. - -The reason behind this proposal seems now very patent. The adoption of -this principle would have enabled England, by indisputable treaty right, -to retain Louisiana, which she confidently expected to take. - -But the Americans opposed this principle and firmly insisted on a treaty -based upon conditions at the beginning of the war. - -The English were very insistent and for a time there appeared a new -danger that the conference would break up. But, as will appear later, -British diplomacy, the most skilful in the world, found a way to -accomplish the main objective of the Uti Possidetis; that is to say, the -retention of Louisiana after the expected reduction of New Orleans. - -While these peace negotiations were simmering at Ghent, the -well-planned, secret expedition against New Orleans was completed in -detail, and with confident feeling of assurance that, because of its -size and veteran fibre, it would be invincible, it was finally put on -its way to join the waiting troops at Nigril Bay, Jamaica. Sir Edward -Pakenham was appointed Commander of the Expeditionary forces. A. C. -Buell, in his "History of Andrew Jackson," published in 1904, states -that Pakenham's order was dated November 4, 1814, and read according to -English war office minute; that General Pakenham "shall proceed to -Plymouth and embark there for Louisiana to assume command of the forces -operating for the reduction of that province." Buell cites as authority -Bathurst papers; State Paper Office, London. - -On the assumption of the correctness of Buell's citation, the term -"Province" as applied to Louisiana, in English official orders, -represents the radical difference of viewpoint as to Louisiana at the -time between the British Government and the American Union, of which the -English termed province was a fair possession from which already one -state had been carved. (Louisiana in 1812.) - -While the British Expedition was ploughing the seas, unexpected -resistance was forming under an American general, who didn't know what -defeat was. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. - Negotiations at Ghent--Continued. - - -We will now return to the parleys at Ghent. The British continued to -insist on the Uti Possidetis as a basis of a Peace Treaty, but proposed -that it be "subject to such modifications as mutual convenience may be -found to require." In a letter to the British Commissioners, dated -October 18th, Lord Bathurst, quoted by Updyke (page 288), cited several -points on which mutual accommodations might be had; but Louisiana was -not one of the points. For if it had been there would have seemingly -been no use planning and sending out the great expedition for the -"reduction of that province." - -From many interesting details touching the Uti Possidetis proposals, the -reader is referred to Updyke ("The Diplomacy of the War of 1812"), pages -288 to 319. - -Finally, realizing the unshaken adherence of the Americans to the -antebellum status, the British gave up the Uti Possidetis demand, and by -specific wording obviously sought to protect the Louisiana design. - -In the amended proposal of the British (see British to American -ministers Nov. 26, 1814), there are two things highly pertinent to the -inquiry we are conducting, to establish the real value of the Battle of -New Orleans. The first was the provision that peace would not be -effective until after ratification by both countries. The second -consisted in the proposed wording for the mutual restoration clause as -follows: "Belonging to either party, taken by the other." The effect of -this wording in the mutual restoration clause, would have been that all -territory belonging to either party, taken by the other, should be -returned. But this would not embrace Louisiana, for from the English -standpoint, it did not legally belong to the United States. - -As to the first point, a quotation is here given from Updyke (page 317): -"The amended project returned by the British commissioners provided that -the notification for the cessation of the war be issued after -ratifications of the treaty should have been exchanged rather than at -the time of the signature. This was designed, it was supposed, to give -time for the completion of the British plans against New Orleans, the -successful outcome of which was never doubted." - -The American ministers, on November 30th, consented to the substitution -of the day of exchange of ratifications for that of the signature of the -treaty, as the time for cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the -period when prizes at sea shall be restored. (See American to British -ministers, Nov. 30, 1814.) - -This agreement was duly carried into the treaty, as we have heretofore -set forth, Article XI, prescribing all details. - -The American ministers opposed the proposed words in the mutual -restoration clause, "belonging to either party, taken by the other." -They insisted on the words, "taken by either party from the other." -Strong reasons were given by the Americans for their attitude, but the -British ministers refused to yield, saying the matter would be referred -to their Government (Updyke, pp. 324-325). - -The British Government, on December 6th, instructed their Commissioners -to insist upon the retention of the words in dispute, and advanced -skilful arguments, in which the real purpose was not revealed. For a -digest of these arguments, see Updyke, pages 335-336. - -To the present day reader, having knowledge of the expedition, which was -then on its way to capture New Orleans, the English purpose seems very -manifest. - -With diplomatic art the British Government sought to make it appear that -the disputed words, "belonging to either party and taken by the other," -were founded in the objective relating to the islands in Passamaquoddy -Bay during the time of the agreed upon reference to a commission to -determine the ownership of these Islands. - -The Americans, not aware, of course, of the expedition against New -Orleans, accepted the viewpoint advanced as to the disputed words, but -while rejecting the words, indicated that they would be "willing to -admit such a modification as should secure the right of Great Britain -from being affected or impaired by yielding possession of the Islands to -the United States." (Updyke, p. 343.) - -The British ministers replied, arguing England's position. That position -in effect was, that during the war she had taken these islands, the -title to which was in dispute, and that to call upon her to restore -them, because they were occupied by the United States at the beginning -of the war, would be unjust; that having agreed to a commission to -settle the ownership of the islands, she was willing, if need be, to -accede to a clause which would especially guard the ultimate right -against the prejudice which the American ministers feared might arise -from the continued possession by Great Britain. The British ministers -admitted the comparatively small value of the territory in question, but -claimed that yielding possession of the Islands involved a point of -honor on the part of Great Britain, and, if insisted upon, might make -the conclusion of peace impossible. (See Updyke, pp. 343-344; report of -conference of Dec. 12, 1814, given by British Commissioners to Lord -Castlereagh.) - -The Americans yielded the point, and thus it appears that the British -Government secured the accession of the principle of the great concealed -objective on a matter of minor importance. Thus the word "possessions" -was admitted into the mutual restoration clause of the peace treaty. - -That mutual restoration clause, as adopted, and incorporated in Article -1, of the Treaty of Ghent, reads as follows: - -"All territory, places and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party -from the other during the War, or which may be taken after the signing -of this Treaty, excepting only the Islands hereinafter mentioned, shall -be restored without delay and without causing any destruction or -carrying away of any of the artillery or other public property -originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain -therein upon the exchange of the ratification of this Treaty, or any -slaves or other private property; and all archives, records, deeds, and -papers, either of a public nature or belonging to private persons, -which, in the course of the War, may have fallen into the hands of the -officers, of either party shall be, as far as may be practicable, -forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and persons -to whom they respectively belong. Such of the Islands in the Bay of -Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both parties, shall remain in the -possession of the party in whose occupation they may be at the time of -the exchange of the ratification of this Treaty until the decision -respecting the title to said islands shall have been made in conformity -with the fourth article of this Treaty. No disposition made by this -Treaty as to such possession of such islands and territories claimed by -both parties shall, in any manner whatever, be construed to affect the -right of either." - -The Treaty, from which the clause above is quoted, can of course be -found in Washington, but copy may be seen at almost any general public -library, in the volume herebefore referred to containing various -Treaties of the United States. - -The reader, who has been following us in our showing of the various -stages of the development of the British design to protect, by -diplomacy, the Louisiana expedition, will recognize the significance of -the word "possessions." By reason of that word, the British were in -position to maintain, after capturing Louisiana, that it was not subject -to return under the mutual restoration clause adopted, not being, under -English construction, a legal "possession" of the United States, formal -notice of that construction having been given in the treaty -negotiations. The subtly accomplished insertion of the word in the -treaty represented a triumph of ulterior British diplomatic design over -the very able, hard-headed, but open and candid American commissioners, -who were entirely in the dark as to the Expedition dispatched to seize -Louisiana. - -That word was of course not as exclusive of argument as the Uti -Possidetis principle first proposed, and insisted upon almost as a sine -qua non; nor was it as clear as the wording subsequently urged, -"belonging to either party and taken by the other"; but it was all -sufficient, backed by the British conviction that Louisiana was not a -legal possession of the United States, and supported by the mighty -British martial power, then unleashed from European war. - -It is obvious to the writer that but for the word "possessions," or -wording of similar import, the treaty would not have been agreed to by -the British; in fact, such indication was given by the British ministers -at the joint conference December 12th, under the guise of the principle -pertaining to the Passamaquoddy Islands. - -Any presumption that Great Britain, after planning the great expedition -against Louisiana, would have, within a few weeks following the final -dispatch of the military forces, signed a peace treaty, recalling those -forces from an attained, long-dreamed-of conquest, is a reflection upon -the intelligence of the British Government of 1814-15. - -With the treaty agreed to, the English Government became anxious about -its ratification by President Madison. Significant evidence of this is -furnished by Doctor Updyke, in his work from which we have already made -a number of quotations. On page 355, Updyke says, "The British ministry -had hoped that their last communication would enable the commissioners -to close the negotiations for the treaty of peace. They were, however, -suspicious of President Madison, and feared he would not sign the -treaty. For this reason it was stipulated that the war should not cease -until after the exchange of ratifications at Washington. They counted -upon having a strong English fleet in the Chesapeake and the Delaware at -the time that Baker, the bearer of the British copy of the treaty, -should reach Washington; and they also counted upon the disposition of -the Eastern states to secede from the Union, as likely to 'frighten -Madison.' It was suggested that if Madison should refuse to ratify the -treaty the British Government should immediately propose to make a -separate treaty with the New England States, which it was believed could -be accomplished." - -Dr. Updyke gives as authority for the foregoing paragraph: "Liverpool to -Castlereagh, December 23, 1814; Wellington Supplementary Dispatches, IX, -495." - -Lord Liverpool was prime minister and Lord Castlereagh was secretary for -foreign affairs. - -The digest given of correspondence between these high English Government -officials makes it plain that the English Government was anxious for -ratification of the Peace Treaty and that they were fearful that Madison -would not sign. - -As confirmatory of the Liverpool apprehension it may be mentioned that -the _London Times_, December 31, 1814 (see British Museum), said that -the ratification by Madison depended upon the outcome of the expedition -against New Orleans. The _London Times_ was unfriendly to the Liverpool -government, and was also very hostile to the United States. In the -circumstances it may fairly be presumed that to allay criticism of the -treaty the press was informed of the expected New Orleans coup. - -In view of the unanimous action of the American Commissioners in -agreeing to the Treaty, it becomes very evident that the British -Government anticipated that something would transpire before the Treaty -reached Washington that might cause the President to withhold his -approval. In the light of present knowledge, that something was the -expected British capture of New Orleans. We may well ask the question, -as to why the British Government was so anxious for the ratification of -the Treaty as to plan to "frighten Madison" and threaten separate peace -with New England, thus disrupting the Union, if that Government expected -to turn back Louisiana after its anticipated conquest. That question -carries its own obvious answer. - -Happily for us, and for England as consequences have proved, and for the -world, the dilemma in which the English statesmen thought President -Madison would be placed, was averted. - -While Carroll, with the American copy of the Treaty, and Baker, with the -English copy, also having authority to exchange ratification, ploughed -the seas, an event was in the making of destiny, which, when brought -forth, utterly confounded the carefully laid plans of the -Liverpool-Castlereagh Government, and in fact ushered in a new epoch, a -new and greater era for the young American Republic--never again to be -pointed to as an experiment. - - - - - CHAPTER IX. - Washington, the First of 1815. - - -One of the most thrilling incidents in our history is the reception by -the country of the news of the Battle of New Orleans. It was -theatrically acclaimed, with almost delirious joy, sharply contrasting -with the condition of deep discouragement and gloom it suddenly -dissipated. Seldom has a victory had more dramatic setting. It is well -for us who enjoy the rich blessings of the present, occasionally to read -of the trials and tribulations through which our forebears struggled, -that they might hand these blessings down to us. "If an old man of -perfect memory," says James Parton, in Chapter 20 of the second volume -of the Life of Andrew Jackson, published in 1860, "were asked to name -the time when the prospects of this republic were shrouded in deepest -gloom, and the largest number of the people despaired of its future, his -answer, I think, would be, 'the first thirty-seven days of the year -1815.'" (Parton makes an error of two days, for the news of the battle -of New Orleans reached Washington February 4th.) - -"The Capital," says Parton, "was in ruins" (as a result of its burning -by the British the preceding August). - -Parton further referred to the Hartford Convention, which on January 5th -had closed several weeks of session. This anti-war convention was -denounced as treasonable by administrative papers. It had aroused -gravest apprehensions of disunion unless peace should at once be made. - -In order to convey an idea of the antagonistic spirit prevailing, -quotation is here given from the _Boston Gazette_, of that period: "Is -there a Federalist, a patriot in America, who conceives it his duty to -shed his blood for Bonaparte, for Madison and Jefferson, and that host -of ruffians in Congress, who have set their faces against us for years, -and spirited up the brutal part of the populace to destroy us? Not one! -Shall we, then, any longer be held in slavery, and driven to desperate -poverty by such a graceless faction?" - -Parton further quotes many New England editors as saying: "No more taxes -from New England, till the administration makes peace." - -Parton further says that the great British expedition, so long mustering -in the West Indies, so long delayed, cast a prodigious shadow before it, -putting New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore on their guard; but that as -the autumn passed without the reappearance of hostile force in the -northern waters, the conviction gained ground that something -overwhelming was in contemplation against the defenseless south and -southwest. - -"It so chanced," continues Parton, "that the 8th of January was the days -on which it was first whispered about Washington that the President had -received news of the British fleet at the mouth of the Mississippi. From -that time the eyes of the country were fixed upon New Orleans--not -hopefully." - -"It is not an overstatement of the case," continues Parton, "to say that -there was not one well informed man in the northern states who believed -that New Orleans could be successfully defended." - -Again quoting from Parton: "After a week of gossip and foreboding, came -news of the gunboat battle, and its disastrous results; also rumors of a -great armament hovering on the Atlantic coast. 'We are a lost country,' -said the Federal papers in doleful concert. 'A wicked administration has -ruined us. New Orleans having fallen an easy prey, the British General -will leave a few acclimated black regiments to garrison that city, and -bring the Wellington heroes around to the Chesapeake. Baltimore will not -be able to resist. Washington will again be overrun, Philadelphia and -New York will next be attacked, and who shall say with what results? See -to what a pass Jefferson and French democracy have brought a deluded -country!'" - -All sorts of dire rumors were in circulation, and to add to the gloom -that prevailed in Washington and elsewhere, a snow storm of remarkable -violence and extent set in on the 23rd of January, and continued for -three days. Belated mails straggled in, showing that the American Army -was still resisting. "New Orleans is not taken yet," said the Western -members, and the Republican editors. "It is merely a question of time," -replied the Federalists; "the next mail will finish New Orleans and -you." - -In the midst of that setting, on February 4th, a horseman came into -Washington, bearing glorious news for the Administration forces. He had -dispatches from General Jackson, detailing the decisive victory of -January 8th. - -Washington was wild with delight at the unexpected victory. "That -evening," still quoting from Parton, "the town was blazing with light, -and the whole populace was abroad, now thronging about the White House -(temporary), cheering the President, then surging around the houses of -the Secretaries, and residences of the leading supporters of the war, -rending the air with shouts.... The next issue of the _National -Intelligencer_ cannot be glanced over to this day without exciting in -the mind something of the feeling which is wont to express itself by -three times three and one cheer more. The great news was headed, in the -_Intelligencer's_ largest type, 'Almost Incredible Victory!!!!'" - -It was worth a life time to experience the jubilation of that night! It -was the sudden restoration of a people's national self-respect. - -The news of the reception of the victory elsewhere was equally as -thrilling. It aroused what Parton called the "maddest enthusiasm." A -quotation may be given from the autobiography of Mr. John Binns: "A -general illumination was ordered in Philadelphia. Few indeed there were -yet there were a few who on that night closed their window shutters and -mourned the defeat of the enemies of their country. I had early -intelligence of this joyful news, and gladly, by an extra, spread it -abroad. I put scene painters to work, and had a transparency painted, -which covered nearly the whole front of my house. There had been a heavy -snow fall, and there was that evening from nine to twelve inches of snow -on the ground. That, however, did not prevent men, women and children -from parading the street, and delighting their eyes by looking at the -illumination and illuminated transparencies, which made the principal -streets of our city as light as day. My transparency represented General -Jackson on horseback at the head of his staff, in pursuit of the enemy, -with the motto: 'This day shall ne'er go by, from this day to the ending -of the world, but He, in it, shall be remembered.'" - -This gives in brief a glimpse of the effect in the country of the news -of the victory at New Orleans. How can any American describe it as a -needless battle? After the event it might have been deplored by the -British as needless, just as any lost battle may be so regarded. - -Just ten days after that lone horseman rode into Washington on February -4th, the Treaty reached the Capitol, and under the inspiration of the -great victory at New Orleans, it was joyfully and speedily ratified. - - - - - CHAPTER X. - But What If the Issue of the Battle Had Been Different? - - -As stated in the last chapter, the Peace Treaty was speedily and -joyfully ratified. But what if the issue of the battle had been -different? - -The chronology of the Treaty may here be given: - -Signed at Ghent, on the 24th day of December, 1814, by the Peace -Commissioners representing the two countries; - -Ratified for England by the Prince Regent on December 31st, 1814. - -Reached Washington the night of February 14th, 1815; - -Sent by President Madison to the Senate February 15th; - -Ratification advised by the Senate, February 16th; - -Ratified by President Madison February 17th, and ratification exchanged -with England's representative the same day; - -Promulgated by President Madison February 18th; thus ending the period -of hostilities. - -Would the United States Senate have advised ratification, or would the -President have ratified, if the British on January 8th, had swept aside -that defensive army and had carried into effect the design to capture -and occupy Louisiana? - -Probably no more grave or serious situation has ever confronted an -American President than that which would have been presented. By -ratifying the treaty, the President would have satisfied the New England -malcontents, who had given veiled threats of disunion. But by the -ratification with England in possession of Louisiana, and holding that -it was not a legal possession of the United States, the President would -have faced a desperate alternative of giving up Louisiana, and the -trans-Mississippi territory; or referring it to the issue of a future -war, or future negotiations. - -It is the belief of the writer that President Madison would have -declined to ratify the Treaty, as long as the British remained in -occupation of Louisiana; thus prolonging the war with its uncertainties, -and taking the risk of the disruption of the Union, through a separate -peace with England by the New England States; a proposition which, as we -have seen, was in contemplation by the English Government. - -All of these questions, so momentous, to the American Union, were -happily and gloriously averted by the marvelous defensive victory at New -Orleans. - -And yet, American historians teach our children that that battle was a -needless one! - -Oh, ignorance! Oh, prejudice! Oh, pro-English!! - - - - - CHAPTER XI. - Testimony From General Jackson Himself. - - -In presenting this case against the school historians, which he feels -has already been made, to the satisfaction of any impartial reader, the -writer has refrained from using much confirmatory material in order to -be as brief as possible. But in the history of Andrew Jackson, written -by A. C. Buell, and published in 1904, there occurs illuminating data -highly apropos in this connection. It may be remarked that Buell is not -a favorite of some historians. Buell was distinctly not pro-English. - -In chapter 3 of the second volume of Buell's history, entitled "British -Designs on Louisiana," the author reiterates a statement before made, -that Jackson's Army of New Orleans saved the Louisiana Purchase, and -adds that few people of the millions who were celebrating in 1904 the -centenary of the colossal transaction between Napoleon Bonaparte and -Thomas Jefferson, realized the significance of these words. Buell later -says: "Viewed in the light of its actual influence on the map of North -America, and the fortunes of this Republic, it was the most important -battle ever fought between Great Britain and the United States.... The -real, vast, enduring value of the Battle of New Orleans, lay in the fact -that it prevented another war." - -In adducing evidence of the purpose of the English Government against -Louisiana, Buell says: "The fleet carried more than an army, the -narratives of the subaltern and Capt. Cooke, reputable British officers -of 85th and 43rd Light Infantry, respectively, tell us there was on -board the fleet 'a complete civil government staff' to be installed in -place of the State Government of Louisiana at the moment of occupation. -One of them, with a spice of humor, informs us that one member of this -'civil government staff' was 'a worthy Colonial official whose -confidence in the success of the Expedition led him to resign the -comfortable position of Collector of Barbadoes to take the larger and -more lucrative post for the (to-be) Crown Colony of Louisiana." - -As other members of the civil government staff Mr. Buell names Honorable -Mr. Elwood, Lieut. Governor, transferred from Trinidad, and Mr. -Dockstader, transferred from upper Canada; also an Attorney-General, an -Admiralty Judge, and a Secretary of the Colony, sent from England -direct. - -Mr. Buell continues: "Besides his general orders at Plymouth, Pakenham -brought with him a proclamation approved by the Home Government or -Colonial office. This proclamation was to be published as soon as the -British Army should occupy New Orleans. It promised protection to -everybody, general amnesty to all previously engaged in hostilities, and -proclaimed the sovereignty of England, in behalf of Spain, over all the -territory fraudulently conveyed by Bonaparte to the United States. It -denied the validity of the secret treaty by which Spain re-ceded -Louisiana to France in 1800. It denied Bonaparte's right to act for -France in 1803. And finally it 'denounced the pretentions of the United -States to sovereignty under the alleged purchase from Bonaparte.' This -proclamation was in printed form at British headquarters the night -before the battle, and its contents were well known to many British -officers. The night after the battle it disappeared. Every copy of it -was burned! - -"All this evidence was obtained from British prisoners taken in the -battle of January 8th. But it lacked one link to make the chain perfect. -That was evidence of specific design and fixed policy on the part of the -British Government. In the absence of such evidence the cabinet of St. -James might, in emergency, declare that the scheme of a 'crown colony' -and the proclamation itself were the acts of General Pakenham--to be -approved if he succeeded or disavowed if he failed. The needed link was -supplied long after." - -"The final link in the chain," says Mr. Buell, "was furnished by General -Jackson himself. In the fall of 1875, the author, then a staff -correspondent of the _Missouri Republican_, visited former Governor -William Allen, of Ohio, at his farm near Chillicothe. During the visit, -which was of three days' duration, the venerable statesman's -conversation--when not upon agricultural subjects--was mainly of -reminiscences of his earlier public life. All was interesting; some of -it historically valuable, particularly those parts relating to the -British invasion of Louisiana. What Governor Allen said on this subject -we reproduce here, exactly as it was printed in 1875." - -Governor Allen's interview is here given in full: - -"Near the end of General Jackson's second administration and shortly -after the admission of Arkansas to the Union, I, being Senator elect -from Ohio, went to Washington to take the seat on March 4th. - -"General Jackson,--he always preferred to be called General rather than -Mr. President, and so we always addressed him by his military -title--General Jackson invited me to lunch with him. No sooner were we -seated than he said: 'Mr. Allen, let us take a little drink to the new -star in the flag--Arkansas.' This ceremony being duly observed, the -General said: 'Allen, if there had been disaster instead of victory at -New Orleans, there never would have been a state of Arkansas.'" - -"This, of course, interested me, and I asked: 'Why do you say that, -General?' - -"Then he said, that if Pakenham had taken New Orleans, the British would -have claimed and held the whole Louisiana Purchase. But I said: 'You -know, General Jackson, that the treaty of Ghent, which had been signed -fifteen days before the battle, provided for restoration of all -territory, places and possessions taken by either nation from the other -during the war, with certain unimportant exceptions.' - -"'Yes, of course,' he replied, 'But the minutes of the conference at -Ghent as kept by Mr. Gallatin, represent the British commissioners as -declaring in exact words: 'We do not admit Bonaparte's construction of -the law of nations; and we cannot accept it in relation to any subject -matter before us.' - -"'At that moment,' pursued General Jackson, 'none of our Commissioners -knew what the real meaning of these words was. When they were uttered, -the British Commissioners knew that Pakenham's expedition had been -decided on. Our Commissioners did not know it. Now, since I have been -Chief Magistrate, I have learned from diplomatic sources of the most -unquestionable authority, that the British ministry did not intend the -Treaty of Ghent to apply to the Louisiana Purchase at all. The whole -corporation of them, from 1803 to 1815--Pitt, the Duke of Portland, -Granville, Percival, Lord Liverpool and Castlereagh--denied the legal -right of Napoleon to sell Louisiana to us, and they held, therefore, -that we had no right to that territory. So you see, Allen, that the -words of Mr. Goulburn, on behalf of the British Commissioners, which I -have quoted to you from Albert Gallatin's Minutes of the Conference, had -a far deeper significance than our commissioners could perpetrate. Those -words were meant to lay the foundation for a claim on the Louisiana -Purchase entirely external to the provisions of the Treaty of Ghent. And -in that way the British Government was signing a treaty with one hand in -front while with the other hand behind its back it was despatching -Pakenham's army to seize the fairest of our possessions. - -"'You can also see, my dear William,' said the old General, waxing warm -(having once or twice more during the luncheon toasted the new star), -'you can also see what an awful mess such a situation would have been if -the British programme had been carried out in full. But Providence -willed otherwise. All the tangled web that the cunning of the English -Diplomats could weave around our unsuspecting commissioners at Ghent was -torn to pieces and soaked with British blood in half an hour at New -Orleans by the never-missing rifles of my Tennessee and Kentucky -pioneers. And that ended it. British diplomacy could do wonders, but it -couldn't provide against such a contingency as that. The British -Commissioners could throw sand in the eyes of ours at Ghent, but they -couldn't help the cold lead that my riflemen sprinkled in the faces of -their soldiers at New Orleans. Now, Allen, you have the whole story. Now -you know why Arkansas was saved at New Orleans. Let's take another -little one.'" - -Thomas E. Watson, at one time United States Senator from Georgia, in a -history of Jackson, written after Buell's history, quotes this interview -and comments that it settles the question, and that if the British had -captured New Orleans, the United States boundary line would have stopped -at the Mississippi. - - - - - CHAPTER XII. - Captain Garland's Testimony On the Spot. - - -Captain Henry Garland was one of Jackson's young officers at New -Orleans. In view of the brilliance and stirring eloquence of a speech -made by him, which I am about to give, from the same chapter heretofore -quoted from Buell, it will be interesting to give a digest of Buell's -description of him: He was born at Nantes, France, his father a merchant -of Norfolk, Virginia, residing there as Commercial Agent for American -importing houses. He received his education in French schools. Coming to -America, he went to Tennessee, and in the War of 1812 volunteered in -Coffee's mounted riflemen, serving with distinction throughout the war. - -In the latter part of March, 1815, the officers of the Louisiana militia -gave a banquet to those of the Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi -troops and the Regulars, on the eve of the disbandment of Jackson's -Army. Captain Garland was selected by his comrades to respond in French -on their behalf. - -"The guests," said Buell, "were welcomed on behalf of the Creole hosts -and hostesses by Vicar-General, the Most Reverend Abbe Dubourg, Bishop -of Louisiana, who made a brief address of welcome, first in English and -then in French. In conclusion, the Abbe expressed sorrow that such an -awful battle should have been fought and so many souls sent unprepared -into the presence of the Creator, two weeks after the Treaty of Peace -had been signed on the other side of the Ocean." - -According to Buell, the Abbe's remarks changed the whole character of -Garland's reply. He spoke in French, which was afterwards translated. - -The writer recommends a full reading of this, at points, remarkably -eloquent speech, from which some excerpts are here given. - -After some introductory remarks, Captain Garland said: "The most -reverend prelate, in his otherwise well chosen remarks, suggested that -it was a pity that such an awful battle should have been fought after -the Treaty was signed across the wide water. I do not agree with him. It -needed that battle to make the Treaty good. It made no difference when -the Treaty was signed. Without that battle it must have been waste -paper. - -"The Treaty as written, did not mean anything. It says that the -territorial status quo ante bellum shall be observed. But the British -Cabinet held ''l'arriere pensee' about that. They never admitted -Napoleon's right to convey Louisiana to us through President Jefferson. -They did not mean to include the Louisiana Purchase in the territorial -status quo ante bellum! - -"The Treaty signed in ink on the 24th of December was a cheat. But the -Treaty that the Pioneers of Tennessee and Kentucky punctuated with rifle -bullets the 8th of January will stand. The English diplomats at Ghent -held, as I have said, ''l'arriere-pensee.' But the British soldiers who -lay down to die in front of Kentucky and Tennessee the 8th of January on -Chalmette plain were sincere and honest. It was in their life blood that -the real treaty was written; not in the ink of Ghent. - -"The English plan of subjugation was complete. Soon after the battle it -was learned that General Pakenham had a proclamation written, signed and -ready to be promulgated the moment his Army should enter the City. This -proclamation denied the right of Napoleon to sell Louisiana, denounced -the pretentions of the United States to its sovereignty, declared that -Spain, the rightful possessor, was incapable of maintaining her -territorial rights, and, finally, asserted a provisional occupation by -the British forces as a virtual protectorate in behalf of the Spanish -Crown. The night after the battle, this proclamation was burned. It may -have been used to illuminate the scene where the corpse of its author -was being prepared for shipment to England in a cask of rum. - -"It is commonly known that, the night of January 7th, a council of war -was held in the British camp. It is also known to many that, on that -occasion, Major-General Sir Samuel Gibbs spoke of General Jackson's Army -as a 'backwoods rabble.' He was right. That's what we are--from the -point of view of a British regular. We are 'Backwoodsmen,' because we -were born and raised in little log cabins all along our great frontier. -The mothers who gave us milk, made their own clothes, and ours, too, of -homespun or of buckskin. As soon as we could lift a rifle we had to hunt -our meat in the woods. Yes, we are 'backwoodsmen.' And from the point of -view of a British regular, we are a 'rabble,' too. That is, we are not -soldiers in the regular sense of the term. We are not enlisted; we don't -get any pay. We are simply assembled, as volunteers, to defend our -country. We have a kind of organization, it is true; but it is as -independent companies, composed of neighbors, and our officers are -simply those men whose characters and experience point them out as -natural leaders. In one word, we have no regulations, except those of -common sense; no discipline, except that of common consent; no mastery, -one over the other, except that of manhood! Such are the men who rallied -from Tennessee and Kentucky when Andrew Jackson called. - -"Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, they are a 'backwoods rabble.' They met, -say, three times their number of soldiers who were the Pride of England! -And the 'Backwoods Rabble' laid that 'Pride of England' low!" - - * * * * * * * * - -"And now just one word more: Most people say that our American Republic -was born the fourth day of July, 1776, at Philadelphia. This is not -true. It was only begotten then. It was born when Burgoyne surrendered -at Saratoga. It was baptised when Cornwallis yielded at Yorktown. But it -was never confirmed, as they say in the religion of the Holy Saviour, -until the 8th of last January! - -"That day saw not merely the repulse and destruction of a British Army, -but it taught the whole world a lesson never to be forgot. It needs not -the gift of prophecy to foresee that the battle fought by Andrew Jackson -and his 'backwoods rabble' did more than repulse cowardly and -treacherous invasion. It taught to all the princes and kings and -emperors on the face of the earth that they must let our young Republic -alone!" - -Apart from his testimony as to Pakenham's intended proclamation, and -apart from his estimate of British diplomacy, the speech of Captain -Garland is well worth preserving as a specimen of real, patriotic -eloquence. - - * * * * * * * * - -From the mass of evidence, available to any earnest historian, the -writer has selected one more witness, whose testimony is compressed, in -an incidental paragraph. At the meeting of the American Historical -Association in New Orleans in 1903, Dr. W. M. Sloane read a paper -entitled, "The World Aspects of the Louisiana Purchase." It is published -in Volume I of the "Proceedings of the American Historical Association -of 1903." In that paper (page 102 of Proceedings above cited) appears -this sentence: "But for Jefferson's wisdom in explorating it (Louisiana) -might have remained a wilderness long after settlement began; Great -Britain coveted it in 1815 when Jackson saved it." There is a sentence -compact with fact. Dr. William M. Sloane (now dead) was at the time of -the address, and for many years professor of history at Princeton -University, and a recognized authority on history. - -In all literature there cannot be found a more concrete, comprehensive -line: "Great Britain coveted it in 1815 when Jackson saved it." -Pro-English historians may deftly turn and twist this and other facts to -their purpose; but let me give a tocsin call: PRO-ENGLISH HISTORIANS -SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS, AND YOUNG AMERICA TAUGHT ONLY THE -UNGARBLED, UNVARNISHED TRUTH. - - - - - CHAPTER XIII. - Recapitulation. - - -The writer, in these pages, has shown by what must be conceded on all -sides, irrefragable evidence that school histories are in error in -saying the Battle of New Orleans was fought after peace, and was -therefore a needless battle. - -The writer has also shown by evidence he considers conclusive, that -England held as invalid the title of the United States to Louisiana, -acquired by sale from Bonaparte to the United States in 1803; that -England deliberately planned the conquest of Louisiana (with the -resultant development, if successful, of a great dominion to the west of -the United States, like Canada on the North). That evidence is mainly -furnished by the British themselves. First in the British note to the -United States Peace Commissioners, criticizing the title of the United -States to Louisiana; and, second, in the fitting out and dispatching of -the expedition against New Orleans during the peace negotiations; in the -complete Civil Government staff, for Louisiana, carried by the -expedition; in the record of the peace negotiations, first in the -insistence by the British upon the Uti Possidetis principle, and, -second, when that failed, in the proposal of words to be inserted in the -Mutual Restoration clause, which proposal finally resulted in the word, -"Possessions" in that clause, under which England could hold that -Louisiana, having been taken, was not subject to return, not being a -possession of the United States; further in the letter of Prime Minister -Liverpool to Lord Castlereagh, assuming British occupation of New -Orleans, outlining purpose to "frighten Madison" into signing the Treaty -(thus leaving England in possession of Louisiana). - -After close and careful study, the writer presents as a summary of his -conclusion as to the value of the Battle of New Orleans: - -First, that it was a highly necessary battle on the part of the United -States, rendered so by British aggression; - -Second, that the statement in school and other histories that it was -fought after peace is entirely false, the Peace Treaty itself being -evidence. (All historians, past, present, and to come, cannot change the -text of that Treaty); - -Third, that it saved the Louisiana Purchase to the United States or -averted another war with England; - -Fourth, that it settled forever the question of the title to Louisiana; - -Fifth, that it created a profound impression on the world. Speaking, as -one orator has put it, in language all nations could understand, that -the young American Republic had the will to be free and the power to -enforce that will; - -Sixth, that it marked the last time that the foot of a foreign foe has -been set on American soil, except when Mexico invaded Texas in 1846; - -Seventh, that it practically added to the Peace Treaty that impressment -and orders in council would no longer be imposed by England, for these -obnoxious policies were never sought to be revived; - -Eighth, that it saved this sorely harassed, nearly treason-torn country, -at a critical time in its life, from threatened and possible disunion, -and re-established national self-respect; - -Ninth, that it made Andrew Jackson a national hero, resulting in his -election as President of the United States, and the establishment of -what is known as the Jackson era; - -Tenth, that it resulted in mutual respect and friendship between the -United States and England, which has endured to this day, and which it -is hoped will perpetually endure. - -Could any battle have had a greater or more varied effect? - -School historians and other historians, in appraising the battle as a -needless and useless one, do violence to truth and grossly impose upon -Young America, as well as America in general. - -The underlying American sentiment of honor, truth and justice demands -revision of these school histories, and that right speedily. - -In conclusion, the writer recommends, as revision, in those histories -which desire to dispose of the Battle of New Orleans in a paragraph, the -following: - -The Battle of New Orleans, fought January 8, 1815, was one of the most -brilliant defensive victories in history. Many historians have classed -it as a needless victory in that it was fought after peace. That is an -error, for the Peace Treaty, signed by the Commissioners of the two -countries, December 24, 1814, specifically provided that it should not -be effective until ratified by both sides. It was not ratified by the -United States until February 17, 1815, soon after its reception. The -news of the victory came at a critical time in the history of the -country, and was received with great enthusiasm everywhere. It settled -forever all question as to the title of the United States to Louisiana. -It saved Louisiana, or a least averted another war with England. It -resulted in lasting, solid peace with England, which should permanently -endure. As illustration of the character of that peace, it may be -pointed out that the boundary line between the United States and Canada -extending about three thousand miles, has not, on either side, a fort or -fortification. God help the English-speaking people if one should ever -be necessary! - - - _The End._ - - - - - ADDENDA. - - - WORDING OF THE TREATY OF GHENT. - -In addition to the references cited on pages 18 and 30 as to the full -text of the Treaty of Ghent reference may be given to volume compiled by -Hunter Miller entitled: "Treaties and Other International Acts of the -United States of America." (See volume 2, pages 574-584.) - - - ENGLISH CRITICISM OF U. S. TITLE TO LOUISIANA. - -The third and fourth paragraphs of the note of the British Commissioners -to the American Commissioners at Ghent October 8, 1814, read as follows: - -In adverting for this purpose to the acquisition of Louisiana, the -undersigned must observe that the instrument by which the consent of His -Catholic Majesty is alleged to have been given to the cession of it has -never been made public. His Catholic Majesty was no party to the treaty -by which the cession was made, and if any sanction has been subsequently -obtained from him, it must have been, like other contemporaneous acts of -that monarch, involuntary, and, as such, cannot alter the character of -the transaction. The Marquis of Yrujo, the minister of His Catholic -Majesty at Washington, in a letter addressed to the President of the -United States, formally protested against the cession, and the right of -France to make it; yet in the face of this protestation, so strongly -evincing the decided opinion of Spain as to the illegality of the -proceeding, the President of the United States ratified the treaty. Can -it be contended that the annexation of Louisiana, under such -circumstances, did not mark a spirit of territorial aggrandizement? - -His Britannic Majesty did certainly express satisfaction when the -American Government communicated the event that Louisiana, a valuable -colony in the possession of France, with whom the war had just been -renewed, instead of remaining in the hands of his enemy, had been ceded -to the United States, at that time professing the most friendly -disposition towards Great Britain, and an intention of providing for her -interest in the acquisition. But the conditions under which France had -acquired Louisiana from Spain were not communicated; the refusal of -Spain to consent to its alienation was not known; the protest of her -ambassador had not been made; and many other circumstances attending the -transaction, on which it is now unnecessary to dilate, were, as there is -good to believe, industriously concealed. (From American State Papers, -Foreign Relations, Volume III, page 721.) - -The reply of the American Commissioners is quoted on page 26 of this -volume. - -(Author's note: From the foregoing we can better understand the refusal -of the British Commissioners to discuss the northern boundary of -Louisiana as proposed in American note of November 10. See page 26, this -volume.) - - - THE UTI POSSIDETIS PROPOSAL. - -The note of the British Commissioners, October 21, 1814, contained the -following paragraph: - -In regard to other boundaries, the American plenipotentiaries, in their -note of August 24, appeared in some measure to object to the -propositions then made by the undersigned, as not being on the basis of -uti possidetis. The undersigned are willing to treat on that basis, -subject to such modifications as mutual convenience may be found to -require; and they trust that the American plenipotentiaries will show, -by their ready acceptance of this basis, that they duly appreciate the -moderation of His Majesty's Government in so far consulting the honor -and fair pretensions of the United States as, in the relative situation -of the two countries, to authorize such a proposition. (From American -State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume III.) - -(Author's note: This is an adroit effort to put upon the Americans the -initial suggestion of the Uti Possidetis. The Americans, after seeing -the futility of any treaty agreement as to impressment and trade -restriction, adhered steadily to the Status Quo Ante Bellum basis. They -rejected the Uti Possidetis principle. It should be borne in mind that -at the time of the above note the secret expedition against Louisiana, -assembling in Nigril Bay, Jamaica, was nearing completion.) - - - TIME OF EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATY. - -On November 10, 1814, the American Commissioners submitted a _projet_ of -a treaty containing in article one the statement that "All hostilities, -both by sea and land, shall immediately cease," and in article fifteen -the statement that "This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified -on both sides, and the respective ratifications mutually exchanged, -shall be binding upon both parties, and the ratifications shall be -exchanged at ______ in the space of ______ months from this day, or -sooner if possible." - -On November 26 the British Commissioners returned the _projet_, altered -to read that "All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease after -the exchange of ratifications as hereafter mentioned," and that "This -treaty, when the same shall have ratified on both sides, and the -ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and -the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington with all practical -despatch, in the space of ______ months from this day, or sooner if -practicable." - -On November 30, 1814, the American Commissioners stated in a note to the -British Commissioners: - -The undersigned consent that the day of the exchange of the -ratifications be substituted to that of the signature of the treaty as -the time for the cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the -periods after which prizes at sea shall be restored; it being understood -that measures shall be adopted for a speedy exchange of ratifications. -(American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume III.) - -(Author's note: It will thus be seen that the British proposed the date -of ratification as the time of the effectiveness of the treaty, and the -cessation of hostilities, and that the Americans consented, thus -carrying into the treaty the provision so uniformly overlooked by our -historians.) - - - PASSAMAQUODDY ISLANDS. - -(Author's note: There was towards the end of the negotiations at Ghent -much and voluminous correspondence, mainly on the part of the British, -concerning the question involved in the Passamaquoddy Islands situation; -it was magnified, admittedly, out of proportion to the subject involved, -especially in view of the fact that the final disposition of these -fisheries was relegated to a civil commission to meet after peace. The -British, while conceding the relative insignificance of the islands, -maintained that a question of honor was involved which might "prove an -insuperable bar to the conclusion of peace at the present time." In -reading the mass of British correspondence on the subject of these -islands one is forced to the conclusion that there was an underlying -purpose.) - - - AS TO WORDING IN MUTUAL RESTORATION CLAUSE. - -The American _projet_ of November 10 contained also the proposition that -all territory, places, and possessions "taken by either party from the -other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this -treaty, shall be restored." - -The _projet_ returned on November 26 by the British Commissioners was -altered to read all territory, places, and possessions, "belonging to -either party and taken by the other during the war, or which may be -taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored." - -The protocol of a conference of the American and British Commissioners, -held on December 1, contained the following statements: - -At a conference held this day, the American plenipotentiaries proposed -the following alterations in their _projet_, as amended by the British -plenipotentiaries: 1st--In article I, strike out the alteration -consisting of the words "belonging to," and "taken by," and preserve the -original reading, viz: "taken by either party from the other." - -This alteration was objected to by the British plenipotentiaries, and, -after some discussion, reserved by them for the consideration of their -Government. (Ibid., pages 735, 742.) - -(Author's note: The American Commissioners stated in a note December 14, -to the British Commissioners that they agreed to accept the British -proposal to "omit the words originally offered by them," provided that -the Passamaquoddy Islands should alone be excepted from the mutual -restoration of territory. See American State Papers, Volume III, pages -743, 744, for full text of note. Also for text of letter from British -Commissioners to British Government as of December 13, see Photostat in -Library of Congress from Public Record Office, London--Foreign Office 5, -Vol. 102. Thus in the mutual restoration clause of the treaty the words -"all places, points, and 'possessions' whatsoever," went in, without the -clarifying term as to "possessions" proposed by the British. Did the -British Government deem the clarification essential? Evidence, too -strong for disbelief, shows it did not. The secret expedition against -Louisiana was then well on its way, and expected to be in possession of -New Orleans any day, with the full set of civil officers, carried on -Admiral Cochran's fleet, installed and in control. Evidence has been -given showing the anxiety of British officials, after the signing of the -treaty, as to its ratification by President Madison. If the British -plans against Louisiana had succeeded would President Madison have -ratified the treaty? That is a fair question for College debate.) - - - - - Transcriber's Notes - - ---Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook - is public-domain in the country of publication. - ---Silently corrected palpable typos; left non-standard spellings and - dialect unchanged. - ---In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by - _underscores_. - - - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Battle of New Orleans, by Reau Estes Folk - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS *** - -***** This file should be named 52355.txt or 52355.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/2/3/5/52355/ - -Produced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/52355.zip b/old/52355.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 080338c..0000000 --- a/old/52355.zip +++ /dev/null |
