"War of 1812 Battles" Topic

"As we review the significant battles commencing in 1812, there is a realization that the name "1812 War" or "War of 1812" is a disservice to those American participants on the battlefields of Canada and across the southern states.The impression of a one year engagement is inherent in the title. It is the only American war that is named and inscribed with a date. Even the British denigrated their involvement and referred to the war as, "The American War of 1812". Presumably, from the English view point, war with Americans, a 25 year enemy, paled when, concurrently, the British forces were engaged far more extensively with France, an implacable 500 year foe…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The description of the battle of New Orleans includes no mention of the regulars, Army and Navy, who were largely responsible for the American victory and repeats the myth of the American riflemen. The author also seems to think that the battle took place a week earlier than the actual date and, of course, resurrects the myth that it was fought after the war was over. Great job!

LT

If the Osprey Campaign Series New Orleans is correct, there were about 790 US infantry on line the day of battle, with 58 US Marines, and 52 US Dragoons – a troop. Another Troop was in reserve. Total troops on line was 3,900, with 14 guns. Many of the gunners were probably from the Navy.

There was a naval force of 106 on the west bank of 1,000 total, but also 16 guns.

Can you tell us more, brass1, about the US forces on the day of Battle at New Orleans? I see small "elements" of two US army regular regiments (7th US at 436; 44th at 352) ; a "battalion" of New Orleans citizens dressed as Napoleon's Old Guard ?Plauches?, 315); two "battalions" of Free Men of Color (LaCoste's at 282; Daquin's at 180); Kentucky riflemen (806, and 546);Tennessee riflemen (680), and others unarmed in reserve; pirate volunteers manning some of the guns under Jean Lafitte; and probably US artillery men.

Was the Navy involved on the day of battle? I recall a sloop or brig or two firing at night on the British encampment, and a force commanded by Jackson attacking the British a night; and also the US Navy ships that were attacked by swarms of British longboats days before the battle.

The peace treaty was signed on December 24 in Belgium. The Battle was fought on January 8. Neither side at the battle knew that the war was over.

Had the British won, they would have held onto New Orleans and the territory, and blocked the Mississippi for use by the US. We were building an army of 35,000, with good leaders, and the war would have resumed. Napoleon's return would have drawn the British away as well.

Any more Regulars and Navy you might tell us about?

GdeP

@Garde de Paris – The treaty was signed, but the war was not over till ratified by both sides. Late February as I recall by the US. Hence, as you say, Britain could have retained New Orleans had they won, the USS President remains in British hands and the fighting after New Orleans at Fort Boyer outside Mobile could have been retained.

Plauche's Battalion is an interesting formation. Besides the grenadier and carabinier companies dressed as Old Guard you have the "Francs" and "Blues" plus a dismounted dragoon element.

Wow, so many errors, omissions and sweeping unsupported statements. I guess this can happen when one tries to distil a war into a limited number of pages and not having a sound knowledge of the conflict.

BTW @Brass1; there were three battles, Jackson's night attack of 23/24 decemebr, the so called British reconaissance in force of 27 December 1814 and the main battle of 8 January 1815.

@garde de paris and @21eRegt; Re had the Brtish won the battle, they would not have held New Orleans, nor the Mississippi, nor Fort Boyer nor any American territory.

Because of Prevost's debacle at Plattsburg (under his leadership he managed to turn a certain victory into a humiliating withdrawal) the British negotiators at Ghent reqlinquished their demand for "Uti Possidetis". retaining territory occupied. Instead, they relucantly settled for "status quo ante bellum", which would revert all territory to what it was at the start of the war.

A battle was fought at Mobile which the Americans lost. Mobile was used as a staging ground before and after New Orleans. New Orleans was regarded as a delay and I have read some comments that they were ready to attack New Orleans again or secure Pensacola again.
A number of regular artillery troops were lost at Mobile by the Americans.

RudyNelson; I am not aware of a Battle of Mobile that the American's lost. The Spanish held it in 1813 but were forced to surrender under threat of American troops and gun boats.Perhaps it is the battle for Fort Boyer that you are referring.

Re: New Orleans, Major-General Lambert was indeed planning on taking Mobile after he took Fort Boyer, which he did. 370 Americans surrendered as the British land assault was about to commence.

Also, Admiral Cochrane planned to recruit and supply more Indians for offensive operations with British troops to tie down American forces. Additionly, he planned to raise black units with core British officers and NCOs (similar to the Chesapeake campaign). Operations would target Fort Stoddert and then Mobile.

If succesful, the British and their allies would move on the Georgia frontier with a view to linking up with Rear-Admiral Cockburn forces (2 battalions of marines and 2 West indian regiments, plus sailors).operating on the Georgia coast.

Being Canadian, I am not sure about the research sources that you have.
One book I suggest is Dr Owsley, R.I.P, book Struggle for the Gulf Borderlands. He was a respected historian that I worked with at Auburn University when I was a GTA. It is well documented. He covered the action of n the South in depth. He comments on Jackson's initial plans included possible British attacks from Mobile, near New Orleans and all the way up the river to Baton Rouge.
The attack on Mobile hinged on British supplies at Pensacola. So Jackson captured it in the Fall of 1814. This forced a direct attack on New Orleans area.
The attack on Mobile, Fort Bowyer, after the battle in Feb.

Pensacola has several small hole in the wall museums coving Bothe the AmRev and War of 1812.
Major Blue expedition is well documented and even included notes on it in my articles and manuscript Alabama in Flames;1812-13.
There are also detailed orders of battles of the attack on Mobile and other actions from early 1900s books.

My main source is Quimby with overall knowledge from "Paridise of Blood", British at the Gates, Reilly; "Glorious Victory", Hickey; "Tecumseh", John Sugden; and others. I also have access to Fort Frontenac Kingston Military History Collection and the Royal Military College Kingston Military History Collection.

Re Dr Owsley's book I will consider getting a copy through the aforementioned libraries. Thanks for the recommendation.

Awaiting your answer re "A battle was fought at Mobile which the Americans lost."; I can't find any reference to this battle. Do you have a date and who attacked it with a reference?

Also, how does one get a copy of your manuscript "Alabama in Flames, 1812-13. Do you intend to publish this manuscript? Thanks for comments.

BTW @IronDuke596 there were actually four battles, the three you mentioned and the artillery duel on January 1, 1815.

LT

Send me an email and I will send you a copy of the transcript. It will be only text. I also paid for a lot of artwork but most of those are not on e-files.
I asked about being in Canada because in the US, we have a great inter-library loan program which is a great way to get difficult to find books. That is how I got all of the books on the 300 year war between Burma and Siam.

Scottnelson@bellsouth.net

Feb 8-12 was the successful attack on Fort Bowyer. I was trying to find the OB. The main US force was companies of the 2nd Infantry Rgt.

OOB for Fort Boyer: "about 370 troops, mostly of the 2nd Infantry," commanded by LCol William Lawrence. The Fort was well armed with 3 x 32 pdrs, 7 x 24 pdrs 6 x 12 pdrs 3 x 9 pdrs, 1 x 4 pdr, 1 x 8" mortar and 1 x 5.5" mortar.(Quimby p 940-941). However, most of the guns and best defences were sea-ward, hence the reason for Lambert's landward assult.

Quimby also gives good info re British artillery and infantry OOB and the siege plan in additon to describing the Fort's curtain walls to the landward side.

Sent the file.