Captain Garland’s Testimony On the Spot.
Captain Henry Garland was one of Jackson’s young officers at New
Orleans. In view of the brilliance and stirring eloquence of a speech
made by him, which I am about to give, from the same chapter heretofore
quoted from Buell, it will be interesting to give a digest of Buell’s
description of him: He was born at Nantes, France, his father a merchant
of Norfolk, Virginia, residing there as Commercial Agent for American
importing houses. He received his education in French schools. Coming to
America, he went to Tennessee, and in the War of 1812 volunteered in
Coffee’s mounted riflemen, serving with distinction throughout the war.
In the latter part of March, 1815, the officers of the Louisiana militia
gave a banquet to those of the Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi
troops and the Regulars, on the eve of the disbandment of Jackson’s
Army. Captain Garland was selected by his comrades to respond in French
on their behalf.
“The guests,” said Buell, “were welcomed on behalf of the Creole hosts
and hostesses by Vicar-General, the Most Reverend Abbe Dubourg, Bishop
of Louisiana, who made a brief address of welcome, first in English and
then in French. In conclusion, the Abbe expressed sorrow that such an
awful battle should have been fought and so many souls sent unprepared
into the presence of the Creator, two weeks after the Treaty of Peace
had been signed on the other side of the Ocean.”
According to Buell, the Abbe’s remarks changed the whole character of
Garland’s reply. He spoke in French, which was afterwards translated.
The writer recommends a full reading of this, at points, remarkably
eloquent speech, from which some excerpts are here given.
After some introductory remarks, Captain Garland said: “The most
reverend prelate, in his otherwise well chosen remarks, suggested that
it was a pity that such an awful battle should have been fought after
the Treaty was signed across the wide water. I do not agree with him. It
needed that battle to make the Treaty good. It made no difference when
the Treaty was signed. Without that battle it must have been waste
paper.
“The Treaty as written, did not mean anything. It says that the
territorial status quo ante bellum shall be observed. But the British
Cabinet held ‘’l’arriere pensee’ about that. They never admitted
Napoleon’s right to convey Louisiana to us through President Jefferson.
They did not mean to include the Louisiana Purchase in the territorial
status quo ante bellum!
“The Treaty signed in ink on the 24th of December was a cheat. But the
Treaty that the Pioneers of Tennessee and Kentucky punctuated with rifle
bullets the 8th of January will stand. The English diplomats at Ghent
held, as I have said, ‘’l’arriere-pensee.’ But the British soldiers who
lay down to die in front of Kentucky and Tennessee the 8th of January on
Chalmette plain were sincere and honest. It was in their life blood that
the real treaty was written; not in the ink of Ghent.
“The English plan of subjugation was complete. Soon after the battle it
was learned that General Pakenham had a proclamation written, signed and
ready to be promulgated the moment his Army should enter the City. This
proclamation denied the right of Napoleon to sell Louisiana, denounced
the pretentions of the United States to its sovereignty, declared that
Spain, the rightful possessor, was incapable of maintaining her
territorial rights, and, finally, asserted a provisional occupation by
the British forces as a virtual protectorate in behalf of the Spanish
Crown. The night after the battle, this proclamation was burned. It may
have been used to illuminate the scene where the corpse of its author
was being prepared for shipment to England in a cask of rum.
“It is commonly known that, the night of January 7th, a council of war
was held in the British camp. It is also known to many that, on that
occasion, Major-General Sir Samuel Gibbs spoke of General Jackson’s Army
as a ‘backwoods rabble.’ He was right. That’s what we are—from the point
of view of a British regular. We are ‘Backwoodsmen,’ because we were
born and raised in little log cabins all along our great frontier. The
mothers who gave us milk, made their own clothes, and ours, too, of
homespun or of buckskin. As soon as we could lift a rifle we had to hunt
our meat in the woods. Yes, we are ‘backwoodsmen.’ And from the point of
view of a British regular, we are a ‘rabble,’ too. That is, we are not
soldiers in the regular sense of the term. We are not enlisted; we don’t
get any pay. We are simply assembled, as volunteers, to defend our
country. We have a kind of organization, it is true; but it is as
independent companies, composed of neighbors, and our officers are
simply those men whose characters and experience point them out as
natural leaders. In one word, we have no regulations, except those of
common sense; no discipline, except that of common consent; no mastery,
one over the other, except that of manhood! Such are the men who rallied
from Tennessee and Kentucky when Andrew Jackson called.
“Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, they are a ‘backwoods rabble.’ They met,
say, three times their number of soldiers who were the Pride of England!
And the ‘Backwoods Rabble’ laid that ‘Pride of England’ low!”
* * * * * * * *
“And now just one word more: Most people say that our American Republic
was born the fourth day of July, 1776, at Philadelphia. This is not
true. It was only begotten then. It was born when Burgoyne surrendered
at Saratoga. It was baptised when Cornwallis yielded at Yorktown. But it
was never confirmed, as they say in the religion of the Holy Saviour,
until the 8th of last January!
“That day saw not merely the repulse and destruction of a British Army,
but it taught the whole world a lesson never to be forgot. It needs not
the gift of prophecy to foresee that the battle fought by Andrew Jackson
and his ‘backwoods rabble’ did more than repulse cowardly and
treacherous invasion. It taught to all the princes and kings and
emperors on the face of the earth that they must let our young Republic
alone!”
Apart from his testimony as to Pakenham’s intended proclamation, and
apart from his estimate of British diplomacy, the speech of Captain
Garland is well worth preserving as a specimen of real, patriotic
eloquence.
* * * * * * * *
From the mass of evidence, available to any earnest historian, the
writer has selected one more witness, whose testimony is compressed, in
an incidental paragraph. At the meeting of the American Historical
Association in New Orleans in 1903, Dr. W. M. Sloane read a paper
entitled, “The World Aspects of the Louisiana Purchase.” It is published
in Volume I of the “Proceedings of the American Historical Association
of 1903.” In that paper (page 102 of Proceedings above cited) appears
this sentence: “But for Jefferson’s wisdom in explorating it (Louisiana)
might have remained a wilderness long after settlement began; Great
Britain coveted it in 1815 when Jackson saved it.” There is a sentence
compact with fact. Dr. William M. Sloane (now dead) was at the time of
the address, and for many years professor of history at Princeton
University, and a recognized authority on history.
In all literature there cannot be found a more concrete, comprehensive
line: “Great Britain coveted it in 1815 when Jackson saved it.”
Pro-English historians may deftly turn and twist this and other facts to
their purpose; but let me give a tocsin call: PRO-ENGLISH HISTORIANS
SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS, AND YOUNG AMERICA TAUGHT ONLY THE
UNGARBLED, UNVARNISHED TRUTH.