Customer Reviews

Chalmette : The Battle for New Orleans and How the British Nearly Stole the Louisiana Territory

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

 

 

"Chalmette" takes its name from the Louisiana plantation where General Andrew Jackson led a collection of American militia, frontiersmen, Indians, Creoles, pirates, and Blacks in a stunning defeat of a larger, better trained and equipped British army in the Battle of New Orleans, January 1815. The details of the units and their commanders, the tactics, the phases of the conflict are clearly told, the various movements and maneuvers leading up to the battle, as well as the aftermath--jubilation in New Orleans and the United States, homeward sail for the stunned British, astonishment in Europe. The real significance of this victory, however, lies in the blocking of the British intent to wrest the Louisiana Purchase territory from the US and to control the Mississippi River, linking New Orleans and Canada in British hands. This dimension of the War of 1812 is told more clearly in Charles Patton's "Chalmette" than in most accounts of the Battle of New Orleans. Well researched and clearly presented in brief compass.

What a reading delight this book is as the intriguing story virtually leaps from the pages. Some may remember the gravity for our young nation of the events leading up to the battle at New Orleans in early 1815. But for many it has been lost.

Yet what a critical time it was for the American experiment in freedom and democracy. This book details in a fasinating way the background years and the intrigue surrounding negotiations to end the nation's war with England. The action then builds from late 1814 right up through the climax of the final battle. The reader will find himself unable to put this book down until the reading is finished. It's a great read, not only for the history buff but also for every patriotic American.

I very much enjoyed this brief history of an often neglected period of American history. In his short piece, Patton not only covers the battle itself, but places the battle in the larger context of the politics and international affairs of the day. That's a lot of material to cover and to accomplish it in a book of this length is commendable. What is sacrificed are discussions and details that would require hundreds of additional pages; what is gained is an appreciation of the topic and a desire (if one is so inclined) to learn more.

While serious students of the period may take offense at some details, I believe this book accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: That is to debunk the common misperception that the battle was meaningless due to a previously signed "treaty" and to stimulate thought and further research into a fascinating topic.

Chalmette is a compelling look into America's "almost" forgotten past. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Mr Patton takes the reader on a journey into the Deep South during the war of 1812. He explains how America could easily have lost its freedom and gone back to England's rule. Although the book is a narrow 143 pages (I read it in a night), the book covers the events leading up to the battle and the personalities of its combatants in detail. The description of the battle is edge of the seat reading. However, the most compelling part of this book for me was the way the author writes of the life and struggles of Andrew Jackson, a real American hero. If you love American History, you must read this book!

The only redeeming feature of this book is Patton's contention that the British worded the Treaty of Ghent in such away that it allowed them time to try to capture New Orleans before it was actually ratified. Patton contends that they felt that Napoleon's sale of the Louisiana Territory to the United States was illegal. This being the case, New Orleans was not protected by the Treaty of Ghent, and therefore was ripe for the taking.

While most books on the War of 1812 pretty much call the Battle of New Orleans a meaningless slaughter fought after the treaty, Patton contends that the victory saved the U.S. form British domination of the Mississippi.. While I would agree that the battle was far from meaningless, if nothing else, it helped to unite the country, I think Patton is being a bit dramatic. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, and Patton does back his up.

The main problem that I have with the book, is that for the most part it is just a rehashing of other books, some of which weren't written more then a year or two earlier then this one. One need only look at the end notes to see what I mean. Not only does Patton use recent books, he almost quotes them verbatim. Patton's description of the victory celebration is almost identical to that of Remini's in his book the Battle Of New Orleans.

As for the Creek War and the Battle at Horseshoe Bend, Patton writes, "at Horseshoe Bend the tremendous struggle for control of North America ended, and ownership changed hands..." Hello? This battle directly lead to the Treaty at Fort Jackson in which the U.S. obtained 20,000,000 acres, and it precluded the Creek from having any major impact on the War of 1812, but to call it a struggle for the control of North Anerica is a little far fetched.

Then in describing the Privateer Jean Lafitte, Patton fails to mention the fact that 1)the British tried to buy his services for $30,000, 2) after he rejected them and reported their offer to Gov Claiborne, he was thanked by having his base camp attacked. Even still, he didn't go over to the British but instead became an instrumental part of Jackson's defense.

This series of events was far more important for the eventual victory at New Orleans then the US victory at Horseshoe Bend. Had Lafitte accepted their offer, he could have supplied the British with manpower, weapons, and ships as well as supplies and his knowledge of the area. Patton never quite grasped this.

I was however quite amazed that Patton actually alluded to the New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1812 (for more info see: When the Mississippi Ran Backwards). These earthquakes get very little attention in history books.

So while beginners to the War of 1812 and the BAttle of New Orleans may find this book interesting, to anyone with any knowledge of either it will read like a graduate paper or a set of Cliff's Notes.

PS as for the 3 reviewers before me, I didn't quite understand the glowing reviews so I took a second look. "Chalmette" was the only book all three of these reviewers had written about.. Kind of makes me wonder....