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.