Why New Orleans mattered

[vtsaogames]

No tin soldier game last night, so no report today. For those having trouble sleeping, here is a post on why the Battle of New Orleans mattered https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/

[has.been]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

[fastolfrus]

Ditto.

Although I suspect the main importance was the American victory at the final battle meant they won the war....

[B6BosGO]

Thank you!

[zippyfusenet]

The strategic importance of New Orleans, as the outlet to the oceans of the entire Mississippi basin, can not be over-stated. If some foreign state had held New Orleans, the United States could not have developed into a continental power; more likely several weak and unstable republics would have contested the heartland of North America.

The United States could not allow the southern states to secede with New Orleans; control of the Mississippi was the key issue of the American Civil War; abolition of slavery was a means to crush the Confederacy and regain the lower Mississippi valley.

[vtsaogames]

Irv, your reply prompted me to add a statement to my post about the importance of New Orleans and why it wasn't just another city. Thanks.

[grant]

Ditto.

Although I suspect the main importance was the American victory at the final battle meant they won the war....

 

Good one.

[FierceKitty]

Origin of jazz. The rest is of minor concern.   

[Belisarius]

Very interesting and thought provoking article, I enjoy these “ What if “ discussions.

[vtsaogames]

Origin of jazz. The rest is of minor concern.   

When the troops returned from the Spanish American War, the demobilized bands sold their instruments in New Orleans. The glut of brass wind instruments gave rise to the fabled New Orleans brass bands, more music bequeathed by war.

[DintheDin]

All this is very interesting historical info, thank you for sharing!

[Bowman]

The strategic importance of New Orleans, as the outlet to the oceans of the entire Mississippi basin, can not be over-stated. If some foreign state had held New Orleans,.......

Very true, but there is a big difference between a foreign power winning on US soil and "holding" a city. I'll disagree and say the battle had no impact beyond raising the morale of the Americans and sending Jackson to the White House. Even if the Brits had crushed the US defenders at New Orleans, the Treaty of Ghent's "status quo ante bellum" clause would have made sure the city was returned.  After New Orleans, the British captured Fort Bowyer at the mouth of Mobile Bay, and Forts Port Peter and St. Tammany on the Georgia coast. They don't belong to England now, why would one expect New Orleans to be different?

[zippyfusenet]

Bowman, it's possible, maybe likely that Britain would not have kept New Orleans after a battlefield victory in 1815. My point is that permanent ownership of the city and the territory by the United States was far from settled, at that time and later, and that New Orleans was the key to the heartland of North America.

There was a lot of banana republic instability in the old southern borderlands in the early 19th century. President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in a moment when Napoleon was distracted was an unlikely stroke of fortune in the first place. William Bowles declared an independent state of Muscogee in Florida in 1799; Aaron Burr intended to detach the trans-Appalachian west, including Louisiana, into a new republic in 1806; the Red Stick Creeks rose in 1812; the Negro Fort colony was planted on the Apalachicola River in 1815; the First Seminole War started in 1818; and then there was that whole Secession thing starting in 1861. Matters could have turned out very differently.

From our perspective in the 21st century, the outcome of a trans-continental United States may seem to have been inevitable Manifest Destiny but it was far from settled for a long time, and it would not have been possible without New Orleans.

[vtsaogames]

... Even if the Brits had crushed the US defenders at New Orleans, the Treaty of Ghent's "status quo ante bellum" clause would have made sure the city was returned.  After New Orleans, the British captured Fort Bowyer at the mouth of Mobile Bay, and Forts Port Peter and St. Tammany on the Georgia coast. They don't belong to England now, why would one expect New Orleans to be different?

The forts captured were not part of the Louisiana Purchase. Great Britain didn't recognize the legality of the Purchase. Therefore they could argue that New Orleans (and the rest of the Purchase) were not covered by the status quo ante bellum. The defeat rendered that argument moot. Such is the opinion of the late Robin Reilly in his "The British at the Gates". He was a British historian who lived in New Orleans for a number of years and had a very balanced take on the battle.

[Bowman]

The forts captured were not part of the Louisiana Purchase. Great Britain didn't recognize the legality of the Purchase. Therefore they could argue that New Orleans (and the rest of the Purchase) were not covered by the status quo ante bellum.

I wouldn't be so sure. I don't believe the legality or acceptance of the Louisiana Purchase was ever an article of the Treaty of Ghent. From the get go Adams and Clay's positions were an adamant expectation that all lands would be returned to the pre-war 1812 boundaries. After a long time in counter proposals, the British negotiators turned to the Duke of Wellington for advice. His quick advice was to agree to a "status quo ante bellum".

"When approved by their respective governments all hostilities would end and “all territory, places and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the war” would be restored as they were before the war.  In short, no one won a thing."

http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/treaty-ghent/

The defeat rendered that argument moot. Such is the opinion of the late Robin Reilly in his "The British at the Gates". He was a British historian who lived in New Orleans for a number of years and had a very balanced take on the battle.

Yes, the loss made the argument moot. However, only one day after taking Fort Bowyer, the victorious British found out about the Treaty of Ghent. They immediately left the Fort and all holdings in the Gulf Coast. And this was on Feb. 12-13, 1815, about 5 days before Washington even officially ratified the Treaty of Ghent.

I'm sure Reilly is an admirable historian. Even if the British held New Orleans, together with the various forts on the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast and Mackinac Island, I'm not convinced John Adams, Henry Clay and Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington would have argued any differently. And I doubt the outcome would have been any different.