Falsehood Shown by the Records.
The unanimity of view presented by these extracts from Tennessee adopted
histories, gives justification for the assumption that the same view
obtains throughout the United States. In partial extenuation of school
historians and of Textbook Commissions, it may be said that they have
followed the lead of most generally recognized historians. But any
trusting follower of the pack leaders could have ascertained, without
much trouble, that the battle of New Orleans was NOT fought after peace.
It occurred fifteen days after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed by
the Commissioners of the two interested nations, but expressly, by the
terms of that treaty, it was not to be effective until ratified by both
sides and ratification exchanged in Washington.
Let us go to specific quotations. The Peace Treaty of Ghent, dated
December 24, 1814, contained, as its first sentence, the following
words: “All hostilities, both by sea and by land shall cease as soon as
this treaty shall be ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned.”
Article XI of the Treaty reads: “This Treaty, when the same shall be
ratified on both sides, without alteration by either of the contracting
parties, and the ratification mutually exchanged, shall be binding on
both parties; and the ratification shall be exchanged at Washington, in
the space of four months from this date, or sooner if practicable.”
Further, the record shows that ratification of the Treaty was advised by
the United States Senate, February 16, 1815; that it was ratified
February 17; and ratification exchanged the same day, and that it was
promulgated February 18th.
The Treaty of Ghent, called the Treaty of Amity, is preserved, of
course, among American State papers. A copy may be found in a public
library in a volume devoted to Treaties, Agreements, Etc. between the U.
S. A. and other Powers, Compiled by W. M. Maloy, Under Resolution of U.
S. Senate of Jan. 18, 1909.
A lawyer friend of the writer, with whom he discussed the situation,
suggested that while manifestly in error in representing the Battle as
having been fought after peace, that a plea in abatement might be
offered for the historians to the effect that the treaty was
subsequently ratified as written; that the Battle of New Orleans had no
effect upon the Treaty; that it further was needless because if its
issue had been different the British under the mutual restoration clause
of the Ghent Treaty would, upon promulgation of the Treaty, have
evacuated New Orleans and Louisiana.
That viewpoint is entitled to such consideration as should be given any
viewpoint based solely on assumption, but it and all such viewpoints
must be subjected to acid judgment based on co-related facts.
As to the first point above made, it is a matter of record that the
treaty was ratified quickly after reaching Washington; it is also a
matter of record that the news of the great American victory at New
Orleans reached the Capitol ten days before. As to the second point,
that the battle had no effect upon the treaty, a wide range of
discussion, based on records, is opened, which will be presented later.
As to the third point, that the battle was needless because, if
successful, the British would have evacuated New Orleans and Louisiana
upon promulgation of the Peace Treaty, it may be stated here that the
records which will be presently laid before the reader give decided
negation to that assumption.
The writer boldly avers, as supported truth, that the British
Government, never having acknowledged the validity of the title of the
United States to Louisiana, secretly dispatched the big expedition
against New Orleans with one hand, while directing peace negotiations
with the other; that it was the British purpose to seize and hold
Louisiana, nominally in the name of Spain; and that the British
Government would never have agreed to a peace treaty, which did not
contain a clause, no matter how subtly garbed, that would not give
justification to the British retention of Louisiana.
However, before going into the matter of citations of authorities and
records, it is due to the reader to present something of the English
attitude at the time, so that he may see more clearly and with more
understanding its actions. That can best be done by brief picture of the
background of that period.