Customer Reviews

The Battle of New Orleans: Library Edition

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This is a subject I thought I had thoroughly studied, most significantly in Remini's definitive Jackson three-volume biography. However, as with his other books, The Battle of New Orleans is replete with new information, new perspectives, and new insights. Above all, Professor Remini always makes his topics, (even those the reader thought he knew well), exciting. Like a good novel, I had trouble putting down the book.

Remini has filled a gap for lovers of American history. The War of 1812, which the Battle of New Orleans ended convincingly (allowing the previously negotiated Treaty of Ghent to be accepted by both the British and our side as negotiated), has had too few treatments in recent years.

Yet the Battle of New Orleans, as the author argues, perhaps was the event that convinced hostile Europeans that America was here to stay as a free nation. I would not completely agree with Remini's contention that the Battle of New Orleans was America's first major victory over European arms (he dismisses Yorktown and Saratoga as mere surrenders doing in my opinion a disservice to the aggressive American commanders and troops who did fight and convincingly beat the British at Saratoga). The author makes a case that this neglected Battle of a forgotten war earned our country the grudging respect it would need to grow unmolested over the next few decades.

That having been said, the book is a very well written account of a stirring and fascinating story. General Andrew Jackson, after defeating the Creek Indians and punishing Spanish Florida for aiding that foe as well as the British, leads his American volunteers to Louisianna to defend against the expected British move on New Orleans.

The British proceed to the bayous of the Mississippi delta and engage in another European style campaign against wiley American back country fighters. One wonders why the English high command did not learn the lessons of Gen. Braddock's defeat in the French and Indian War or numerous defeats during the American Revolution. Doctrinaire plans and rigid troop handling along the lines of European war were not very successful against citizen soldiers who know how to use their weapons with skill and fight from behind cover.

Using first person sources to illustrate the events in December 1814 to January of 1815, Remini gives voice to the events and people who helped make New Orleans a stirring American victory. Unsurprisingly, this biographer of Jackson paints a good portrait of the man whose talents and traits were sorely needed by our side in facing British regiments who had recently faced down Napolean's best troops. The hodge-podge of defenders are given colorful treatment. The pirate Laffite brothers and their outlaw band who manned our artillery, backwoodsmen in buckskin (giving the name the British used for our troops -- 'dirty shirts'), freed blacks, Creols and New Orleans first citizens all manned the barracades to await the onslaught.

The British, with their straight ahead determination, poor avenue of attack and lack of planning aided the American cause. But Jackson earned much of the glory that surrounded his victory. He cajoled troops and supplies, built a well fortified line, attacked before the British were all up and ready and worked to keep together an army that in reality was more like today's UN peacekeeping forces than a coherent American corps.

The battle scenes are well told, particularly the Jan. 8th main assualt in front of New Orleans. Remini's writing is good enough that the unfamiliar (to most) details of an unknown battlefield come alive in the reader's mind. So do the personalities on both sides. His descriptions are aided by three very good maps that allow one to fully picture the terrain.

This book is a quick read. The author tells just enough of the main charactors to separate them from one another in the story without bogging it down with a lot of background. The battles themselves come alive and are given a full description and dramatic rendering. You'll enjoy this book.

A fine account. Lucid, flowing prose and an interesting subject. The author is able to relate the details that make battles interesting from the point of view of the common soldier to the officers in charge, yet also connects the events of battle to the war itself and larger diplomatic and political issues thus highlighting their significance. This book also has what some good military histories foolishly lack -- good, detailed battlefield maps that make the action understandable. Take it from a former soldier (US Army 1966-69, Vietnam service 1968-69) you will enjoy this book.

Robert Remini, a noted and prolific scholar on Andrew Jackson, has narrowed his focus to write a colorful and informative account of the Battle of New Orleans, the final battle in Britain's unsuccessful war of invasion of the United States, the "War of 1812". Most Americans' grasp of the battle boils down to a few factoids: Andy Jackson won, pirate Jean Lafitte helped, and the battle was fought after the treaty marking its end (the Treaty of Ghent) was signed, but before news of the treaty reached the new world. Remini's success is in providing a wonderful and interesting background for the events of the battle: the polyglot and stratified society of New Orleans; continued British designs in North America even after the American colonies won their independence; and most starkly, the stalwart, near fanatical patriotism of Andrew Jackson.

The British campaigning is well recounted, from attacks at Mobile Bay to the laborious transfer of troops through the Louisiana bayous, to the final disastrous assaults on entrenched American lines. This book is informative without being overly-dense to a newcomer to the material. A must-read for Americans who've let the battle and its significance slip from the national consciousness. Remini does pay a bit of lip service to the British by doing some research on their commanders and setting them in the context of their career paths. He also wraps up by noting that the Battle of New Orleans was, for decades, seen as a defining coming-of-age moment for the young American republic, it launched Jackson to the White House and was the final and true declaration of independence for newly-empowered Americans.

However, Remini's unabashed flag-waving and affection for his hero create some awkward passages. Time and again he gnashes teeth at British arrogance and nearly weeps at the ragtag nature of the American army, held together by the immense will of great Jackson. At times the book borders on hero worship and veers away from analytical political/military history. So that in the end, this is a readable and interesting history, but a flawed one. An informative ride to the gates of New Orleans, but one taken from the American side.

I tend to agree with all the previous reviews of this book, both the good and the bad. That may sound a bit strange, as this is a well told historical account of the Battle for New Orleans. The book's narrative is fast and snappy, the story is well told and presented in a way that it reads like a novel. The author, Robert V. Remini certainly loves this period of history and has a deep respect for Andrew Jackson, which shows throughout the book, maybe too much so. One of the previous reviewers mentioned the fact that the story was a bit too much like "good versus evil".

I found on occasions that the American forces could do no wrong while the British were blunderers. For example, the chapter `The Night Attack' shows Jackson throwing his troops, inferior in numbers and without full knowledge of the British forces in a spoiling attack against the advance guard of the British forces. Certainly the spoiling attack is a sound military move and paid good dividends in this instance. Jackson is shown as a daring commander however when the British forces do something very similar against the American positions they are made to sound like bumbling fools. Why is one commander a daring master and the other an idiot?

On a similar note, when Jackson showed caution on a number of occasions throughout this battle he was commended but when the British leadership showed this same caution they were castigated. I agree with the author that the British leadership was ineffectual at times but that is making a judgement in hindsight. The author made mention of Jackson's burning hatred of the British and their contempt for the American forces, maybe a little of this has rubbed off on the author?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this book, it's a great story and my own country's history has no love of the British but I don't like it to show so one sided in any book I read. Beside that, the maps supplied (3) were of a high quality and a pleasant change but once again even the maps seemed to be one sided. The map showing the positions of the opposing forces for the attack on January 8, 1815 (page 135) show in great detail the American positions with the units indicated but nothing as detailed for the attacking British forces.

Having said all that, it was pleasing to note that the author paid tribute to the brave soldiers on both sides of this terrible battle. Overall this is an excellent story, told with verve and passion and it's a great book to read. I hope that the remarks above do not offend anyone, they are not made with that intention. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history and would like to learn about this turning point in America's history.

While researching the Battle of New Orleans for a paper, I consulted this work as a source. Admittedly, I came to it expecting some partiality for "The Hero of New Orleans," but this book goes far beyond mere partiality. It is essentially a rehash of the traditional American version: The complacent redcoats, accustomed to victories in Europe, came to brush aside the "dirty-shirts" and seize the "Beauty and Booty" of New Orleans, but the Americans, inexperienced but endowed with innate talent, rallied behind Old Hickory, who outwitted and outfought the British at every turn in true American style. The marked disparity in casualties makes this a difficult argument to refute prima facie, but there is much more to the story.

Remini is very selective in his sources, especially when compared to other historians of the battle. Robin Reilly takes a very reliable approach in The British at the Gates. While consulting memoirs and secondary histories, he makes extensive use of diaries, letters, and reports from the participants themselves at or near the time of the battle. Remini, however, largely eschews this line of research, especially for the British. For their point-of-view, he relies almost solely on Lieutenant Gleig and Captain Cooke's accounts written years after the event. Unfortunately, the best source for the British does not even appear in his bibliography. Colonel Dickson, the British chief of artillery, kept a detailed, fairly objective journal throughout the campaign. But while Remini is willing to quote a young infantry lieutenant's perception of the artillery battle on Jan. 1 written years after the event, he ignores and flagrantly contradicts the British artillery chief's assessment, complete with figures and a sketched plan, immediately after the battle. Major Michell's diary is infinitely briefer, but it does not show up either, since it too contradicts what Remini writes. Official British reports receive little attention, in contrast to the near-dependence upon just two subalterns' memories. Common myths of the battle- among them that the British used casks filled with sugar (instead of the earth they actually used), that the Americans managed to spike the guns on the West Bank, that the British would have sacked New Orleans had they conquered it, and that the Americans completely silenced the British artillery on Jan. 1- abound in this work, despite the lack of corroborating evidence in primary sources, which often actually disprove them.

The tone itself is an indicator of the author's bias. Remini beats his audience over the head with the "Beauty and Booty" charge against the British, even though this has been convincingly refuted in Donald Hickey's Don't Give Up the Ship! Myths of the War of 1812 and Reilly's The British at the Gates. We are always reminded of the perfect marksmanship of the American riflemen, even to the point where Remini says, "The Tennessee and Kentucky riflemen never seemed to miss a target," having just a paragraph earlier cited Lieutenant Gleig's memoirs to show that "`the Americans, without so much as lifting their faces above the rampart, swung their firelocks by one arm over the wall.'" This only compounds the problem in Remini's emphasis on rifles that they were too few, too slow-loading, and too hindered by the clouds of black powder smoke to greatly impact the battle, and that Donald Graves's analysis of British units "shows that those with the heaviest casualties were in front of the American guns, not the American riflemen."

Remini can also be vague with the sources he does have. Some of his most exciting tales (Choctaws raiding the British camp and inflicting 50 casualties and the Tennesseans sneaking up a 6-pounder to fire on the British by night) have no citations with which the reader can verify them. He even states that Jackson, already weak with dysentery, went "five days and four nights" without sleep or a good hot meal, and apparently with no impairment of his faculties. He describes the victory celebrations immediately after the battle very well, but when he describes the changes in America following the battle, he does not provide any citable evidence of causality, rather than just correlation.

And he even feels free to change his source's evidence. To prove that the British intended to march up the Mississippi all the way to Canada, he cites a quote attributed to Lord Castlereagh by early American historian Alexander Walker, which curiously does not appear in too many other historians' works on the battle. Castlereagh supposedly proclaimed just about the time the expedition arrived at New Orleans that it had already taken New Orleans, burned the major American seaports, and seized the entire Mississippi and the Great Lakes. It is a ridiculous claim that Castlereagh said such a thing, all the more problematic because Walker does not provide his source, so Remini changes it to a prediction instead.

This book is not complete fiction, but the errors are blended in so thoroughly with fact that it should be avoided. There are more balanced accounts available, such as Robin Reilly's, Donald Hickey's, and John Elting's in Amateurs, to Arms!.

This is a wonderful book for anyone interested in the real "soul" of the United States and its military future; it's not just a history of the Battle of New Orleans, it's also a primer for the debate about the future of the American military.

The United States was thoroughly defeated in the War of 1812. By 1814, the New England economy had been destroyed and several states were talking of secession to join Canada, Washington was in smoldering ruins, the Navy cowering in ports and the British were conducting search and destroy missions at will along the seacoasts. At Ghent, American negotiators threw in the towel and accepted the British terms to restore everything as it had been before the war.

Out of this, Americans invented their nation. Until then, European nations often regarded the War of Independence as an accident. After 1815, no one doubted the United States. Without the Battle of New Orleans, the United States might have dissolved in confusion or dissension. For the British, it was a minor skirmish in a dismal far off swamp. Only 291 British soldiers were killed in the final attack, compared to 240 British soldiers killed in the charge up Bunker Hill.

After New Orleans, the British created the greatest empire the world has ever seen. After New Orleans, the Americans created democracy as the world knows it today. This nation is a product of the resourcefulness, courage and ability shown by Gen. Andrew Jackson at New Orleans. Remini puts his focus on Jackson; without him, the Battle of New Orleans would have been a sorry repeat of the burning of Washington.

New Orleans didn't teach the British anything. They used the same stupid "charge the cannons" tactics in the Crimean War, celebrated in The Charge of the Light Brigade. In World War I, British generals updated their New Orleans tactics to "charge the machine guns." New Orleans taught the British nothing; the War of 1812 taught Americans never to make the same mistake twice.

Instead of fat generals who were heroes of an earlier war, Americans learned the value of military competence and professionalism. Thirty years later, officers trained in the War of 1812 needed less than one quarter of the troops used in the War of 1812 to rout the Mexicans. War is the harshest test of any nation, and by 1815 the United States learned it could survive against the world's finest military. New Orleans showed they could also win smashing victories.

After the War of 1812, the United States became the de facto partner of Great Britain in blocking further European interference in the Americas. Remini's descriptions of events relating to the battle are vital; it emphasizes the core values that made the United States what it is today -- and Great Britain what it is today. It gave Americans their wonderful confidence to always overcome any disaster and come back stronger. This is a wonderful book that explains the nature of the soul of this country.

Take away that self-assurance, and the United States would have become "the first Balkans" with Serbian troops needed to keep the peace among fractious states. Hopefully, Professor Remini will now expand his last four and one-half pages into another book of this length to illustrate the lessons and myths learned from the Battle of New Orleans -- as relevant today as they were in 1815 - 45. The United States is now in the position that Britain was in 1815; in another century, the US may be in the same position that Britain was in 1915. That is the implicit meaning of this book.

Perhaps the finest assessment of the War of 1812 came from Thomas Jefferson when he wrote, "We owe to their [Britain's] past follies and wrongs the incalculable advantage of being made independent of them in every material manufacture. These have taken such root, in our private families especially, that nothing can now extirpate them."

This book outlines the mood that made it so. The decisions of the next decade, in terms of military and civilian attitudes, will be as significant as those made after Gen. Jackson's triumph over "the evil empire" of his era.

This is an exceptional account of a pivotal -- though largely neglected -- moment in US history. I came away with renewed respect for Andrew Jackson and his band of "dirty shirts." As I read this book,I could not help thinking that it lends itself perfectly to a Hollywood adaptation along the lines of "Gettysburg" and "The Rough Riders."

Wow. Cover to cover, I read it as fast as I could, read it at lunch, before and after dinner, and lost a lot of sleep up reading late. What a book. I love American history, and for me, the Battle of New Orleans is where we started thinking as Americans, believing in Liberty and the things we all take for granted today. Buy it, read it, a must have for any history collection. Remini gives excellent quotes complete with consumate sources and background on both the Americans and our invading British enemies of that time. An excellent read.

Battle of New Orleans - Robert Remini

This book is about the Battle of New Orleans that took place as the last fight with Britain in the War of 1812. For me, I had to read it at one sitting. Great book.

The battle took place in January 1815, with 2 more attempts by the British, to defeat the Americans after their defeat on the fields of Chalmette.
The book includes 3 maps to support some of the writing as to where the battle was fought and who was where. However, the author goes into a lot of detail explaining which unit was where on the battlefield, and no maps are shown for the kind of detail written.
The book details events before and after the battle.
He notes that a group of states in the Northeast had met in Hartford Ct, and had drafted a proposal to secede from the U.S. The war was going badly, and we had been defeated everywhere, except at Baltimore.
The British had reason to believe they could just brush the Americans off the field of battle, as they had done this in several previous battles, including Washington, which they burned, and Hampton, Virginia, where they raped the women.
New Orleans was the key to the Mississippi, and the British were sending an army south from Canada, and this army was to go north. The armies would meet, and then they would march east to the Atlantic ocean, shredding the American military in its way.
They were the best of the British army, fresh from defeating Napoleon. 15,000 of them vs. 5,000 Americans.
New Orleans was bulging with goods, having been cut off from shipping due to the war. Only the Barataria pirates dared to venture into the Gulf. The British army knew that New Orleans had plenty of booty to share when they won the battle, and lots of women to rape, so they were very much in favor of the battle.
The British endured much to get to the battlefield, but the men thought it worth the prize.

The Brits though, had to deal with Andrew Jackson. He fought the Creeks, allies of the Brits and defeated them before the British army arrived. Had they not been defeated, it is likely that the combination of the Indians and the British army would have defeated Jackson.
Jackson attacked the Indians in Alabama and Spanish Florida, and defeated the Spanish and Indians at Pensacola. The Brits had a fort at Pensacola too, and blew it up when Jackson defeated the Spanish at the 2 Spanish forts defending Pensacola from a land attack. I have read accounts indicating that Jackson was insubordinate, disobeying orders from Washington not to attack the Spanish. Jackson did not get orders not to attack until after the battles were over.
Frustrating a British attack on New Orleans starting from Pensacola, the Brits attacked Mobile.
Jackson's men defeated them there too, successfully defending a fort defending Mobile bay.
This defeat meant that the British could not attack New Orleans over land, the easy way.
They had to attack from the east, in the swamps.
This they did, attacking from lake Borgne.
Having lived in New Orleans, and having seen several movies about the battle, this book corrects some myths.
Jackson had steel gray hair, not the white hair Charleston Heston wig of white hair. Jackson was 47 at the time of the battle. The people of New Orleans rallied around Jackson and his men, and fought bravely. Jackson's men did not defend a bunch of Cajun wimps. There were 3 Lafitte brothers. I did not know that Dominique You was one of them. He has always been portrayed as a former Napoleon artillery gunner.
The author makes no mention of any of the brothers fighting for Napoleon. It is true that the Lafitte pirates were pivotal in the battle, furnishing supplies, and artillery and knowledge of the land expertise. Jean Lafitte became one of Jackson aides.
In spite of this being the best of the British army, the officers made several blunders which cost them the battle, over and over.
1.When they initially got to the battlefield, on December 23, the Brits had enough troops to take New Orleans, and General Keane was urged by his officers to attack then and there with the men he had. Jackson was not aware that they were there. Keane waited for the rest of the army, so the opportunity was lost.

2. The plan on the day of the major battle , January 8, was to attack from both sides of the river. Unfortunately, a dumb Scot officer delayed the boats taking the troops across the river by several hours, thus the attack on the West bank was delayed several hours. The west bank attack was successful, but occurred after the major battle on the east bank, so thanks to the Americans spiking the artillery on the West bank, meant nothing when the Americans were defeated. General Packenham attacked even though he knew his troops were not placed correctly. He was impatient, and had no respect for the Americans.

3. Even after the battle on Jan 8, the Brits tried again to sail upriver and attack New Orleans from the river. Had they been able to get past Ft. St. Phillip, they could have still won. The Americans held Ft. St Phillip, and again New Orleans was saved. This battle is never shown in the movies.

4. The Brits then tried again at Mobile, to make an overland attack from there. This time they took the fort at Mobile. Unfortunately, the message that the Treaty of Ghent had been signed a month earlier arrived, so further attack was called off.