Talk:Battle of New Orleans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

questionable casualty claim

"British casualties from December 25, 1814, to January 26, 1815 were 49 killed, 87 wounded, and 4 missing."

Although provided with a citation, this sentence can't be right, unless we assume that the British suffered the vast majority of their casualties on Lake Borgne or in the Dec 23 night battle while suffering very few losses on January 8. Do we really believe the British suffered 2000 casualties on Dec 23 and only a few dozen on January 8? If so, then Dec 23 is the real date of the battle. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8th and that was where the British suffered 2,000 killed, wounded, or captured. I've checked five different sources. Feel free to make any changes needed to bring the article back in line.Tirronan (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The American casualty count seems out of wack. According to the US Army's history arm at the actual battle, the count is 13 dead, 30 wounded, and 19 missed or captured. The result box has this as a far inflated figure. Those figures seem to be coming from James, which is hardly a reliable source. This is going to have to be looked into. Here is the link so I can be fact-checked. https://history.army.mil/news/2015/150100a_newOrleans.html Tirronan (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe both the British and American casualties in the infobox are soley for the January 8th assault, the info box used to include all of the casualties from December 25th to January 26th, but some lunkhead removed them and the old painting and replaced them with soley the information for the Battle on the 8th. Actual American fatalities from December 25th to January 26th were close to 50 killed, while British fatalities were upwards of 350. History Man1812 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

There should not be issues with identifying British fatalities during the War of 1812. As part of the bicentenary, the primary source documents, pay musters, were consulted. Lists of men who died and their associated units were transcribed. Whilst the original site does not appear to be maintained, the information is available to anyone with a FindMyPast subscription. Was anything similar undertaken for US forces at the time of the bicentennial? Keith H99 (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I could have worded that better. There were casualty returns in the WO 25 series that were being transcribed for the bicentenary. The infantry pay records in the WO 12 series would record any fatatilies. These latter records were made available for the time period 1812 to 1817 via Ancestry from 2016 onwards. The New Orleans casualties for the time period December 23 to January 26 Casualty returns within "No. 16991". The London Gazette. March 9, 1815. pp. 443–446.. By utilising the two resources mentioned previously, it should be possible to identify each casualty.

It would appear something similar could be done for US Forces, if you have access to Family Search's resources.

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/US_War_of_1812_Casualty_Records

I would have expected a casualty return from General Jackson to have been republished in Niles's Register or similar, for both the battle and the month of hostilities. Keith H99 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It would appear that the following had been recorded in prior years. 'British casualties for the entire campaign totaled 2,459 with 386 killed, 1,521 wounded, and 552 missing. American casualties for the entire campaign totaled 333 with 55 killed, 185 wounded, and 93 missing. Source: James, p. 563.' James's figures would need comparing against the London Gazette for the British, and there must be some reliable sources to prove or disprove his figures for Jackson's forces, rather than a website. I don't figure how this is so wildly different to the figures in the initial post of this section. Keith H99 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As for the campaign figures, they seem to be the stated total at the end of the four casualty reports that have been added together, correctly or not.
Return of Casualties in Action with the Enemy near New Orleans, on the 23d and 24th December 1814
Total— 4 captains, .1 lieutenant, 7 Serjeants, 1 drummer, 33 rank and file, killed;
1 lieutenant-colonel, 1 major, 2 captains, 8 lieutenants, 10 Serjeants, 4 drummers, 141 rank and file, wounded ;
1 major, 1 lieutenant, 1 ensign, 3 Serjeants, 58 rank and file, missing
[46+167+64]
Return of Casualties between the 25th and 31st December 1814.
Total—1 captain, 1 drummer, 14 rank and file, killed ;
1 lieutenant, 2 ensigns, 1 serjeant, 34 rank and file, wounded;
2 rank and file missing.
[16+38+2]
Return of Casualties between the 1st and 5th January 1815.
Total—3 lieutenants, 2 Serjeants, 27 rank and file, killed;
4 lieutenants, 40 rank and file, wounded ;
2 rank and file missing.
[32+44+2]
Return of Casualties on the 8th January 1815.
Total—1 major-general, 1 lieutenaut-colo- nel, 2 majors, 5 captains, 2 lieutenants, 2 ensigns, 11 Serjeants, 1 drummer, 266 rank and file, killed;
2 major-generals, 3 lieutenant-colonels, 2 majors, 18 captains, 38 lieutenants, 9 ensigns, 1 staff, 54 Serjeants, 9 drummers, 1126 rank and file, wounded ;
3 captains, 12 lieutenants, 13 serjeants, 4 drummers, 452 rank and file missing.
[290+1260+484 + 1 major-general killed + 2 major-generals wounded]
All four reports can be found in the London Gazette and elsewhere Keith H99 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

reformatted Keith H99 (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Fifth report for 9th January to 26 January 1815 contains one killed and five wounded.Keith H99 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

James seems to be convinced there were 290 deaths on 8 January, which would explain his count being out by 1. The following from a book on Washington, funnily enough, by Anthony S Pitch, published in 2013

By their own account, British losses numbered 2,037 - with 291 killed, 484 missing, and 1,262 wounded. The victors also held some 500 prisoners, many with mortal wounds, and an impressive file of about a thousand captured weapons.Keith H99 (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, it doesn't help that Remini is in print whereby he declares that 484 men were 'taken prisoner', instead of using the correct terminology. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?Keith H99 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Originally posted in wrong place, now repositioned.Keith H99 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a slightly different figure from primary sources to what is on the website. I am seeing 13 dead, 39 wounded (versus 30), and 19 missed or captured. One of the primary sources is able to split this into right bank and left bank casualties. The spadework was done by Jerome Greene, consulting the papers of Jackson and Tatum. Keith H99 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

American casualty figures are in James too, and are based on a primary source document reproduced on page 563. This is even more insightful as it breaks down the casualties by unit:

APPENDIX. No. 103.

Report of the killed, wounded, and missing of the army under the command of major-general Andrew Jackson in the action of the 8th of January, 1815.

Killed ;— Artillery, navy, and volunteers at batteries, 3 privates; 7th United States' infantry, 1 serjeant[sic], 1 corporal; general Coffee's brigade, 1 private; Carroll's division, 1 Serjeant, 5 privates; Kentucky militia, 1 private; majors Lacoste's and Dacquin's volunteers of colour[sic], 1 private; General Morgan's militia, 1 private.

Total killed — 13.

Wounded; — Artillery, &c. 1 private; 7th United States' infantry, 1 private; general Carroll's division, 1 ensign, 1 serjeant[sic], 6 privates; Kentucky militia, 1 adjutant, 1 corporal, and 10 privates; volunteers of colour[sic], 1 ensign, 5 serjeants[sic], 1 corporal, 8 privates; general Morgan's militia, 2 serjeants[sic], 2 privates.

Total wounded — 39.

Missing ;— Kentucky militia, 4 privates; Morgan's militia, 15 privates.

Total— 19.

Total killed, wounded, and missing, this day — 71.

Note — Of the killed, wounded, and missing, on this day, but 6 killed, and 7 wounded, in the action on the east bank of the river, the residue in a sortie after the action, and in the action on the west bank.

Recapitulation.

Total killed, 55; wounded, 185; missing, 93  : grand total, 333.

Truly reported from those on file in this office.

ROBERT BUTLER.

To further confuse matters, the 13 + 39 + 19 is in a reprint of a letter sent on January 19th, and the 39 is recorded as a 30. Quite how the mis-transcription came about, who knows? Keith H99 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Below is the first part of the casualty report, which William James had omitted.

'Action of December 23d, 1814

Killed. - Artilleryman 1; 7th U. S. Infantry, 1 lieutenant, (McClellan), 1 sergeant, 1 corporal, 4 privates; 44th U. S. Infantry 7 privates; general Coffee's brigade volunteer mounted gun men, 1 lieutenant colonel (Lauderdale), 1 captain (Pace), 1 lieutenant (Samuel Brook), 2 sergeants, 4 privates. - Total killed 24.

Wounded. - General staff, 1 colonel (colonel Piatt); 7th U. S. Infantry, 1 captain (A. A. White), 1 ensign, 1 sergeant, 2 corporals, 19 privates; general Coffee's brigade, 1 colonel, 2 lieutenant colonels, 1 captain, 2 lieutenants, 1 quarter master sergeant, 3 sergeants, 2 corporals, 1 musician, 30 privates; New Orleans volunteer corps, 1 captain, 2 sergeants, 7 privates; volunteers of color, 1 adjutant and 6 privates. - Total wounded 115.

Missing. - General Coffee's brigade, 1 major, 2 captains, 3 lieutenants, 1 quarter master, 3 ensigns or cornets, 4 sergeants, 1 corporal, 2 musicians, 57 privates. - Total missing 74.

Total killed, wounded and missing on the 23d - 213

Action of December 28, 1814

Killed. - General Coffee's brigade, 1 private; New Orleans volunteer company, 1 private; general Carroll's division of Tennessee militia, 1 colonel (Henderson), 1 sergeant, 5 privates. - Total 7

Wounded - Marines, 1 major (Carmick); New Orleans volunteer company, 3 privates; general Carroll's division, 1 lieutenant, 3 privates. - Total wounded 8.

Missing. - None.

Total killed, wounded and missing on this day, 15.

Action of the 1st January, 1815

Killed. - Artillery, navy and volunteers of batteries, 8 privateers; 44th U. S. Infantry 1 private; General Coffee's brigade, 1 sergeant; general Carroll's division, 1 private. - Total 11.

Wounded. - Artillery, navy and volunteers of batteries, 8; 7th U. S. Infantry, 1 private; 44th U. S. Infantry 3; Coffee's brigade, 2; New Orleans volunteers of color, 1 lieutenant, 1 sergeant, 1 private. - total 23.

Missing. - None

Total killed, wounded and missing this day, 34.

ACTION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RIVER

8th January 1815' Keith H99 (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The above is from a report

from Colonel Robert Butler, Adjutant General's Office New Orleans

to Brigadier General D. Parker, Inspector and Adjutant General, Washington

dated January 16, 1815

It was reproduced in its entirety on page 385 of Niles Register published Saturday, February 18, 1815 Keith H99 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

'Head-quarters, 7th Military district

Adjutant-general's office, Jackson's lines

below [New] Orleans, January 16th 1815.

Sir

I have the honor herewith to enclose for the information of the war department, a report of the killed, wounded and missing of the army under the command of major general Jackson in the different actions with the enemy since their landing.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully your obedient servant.

[Colonel] ROBERT BUTLER, Adj.gen

[To] Brigadier-general D. Parker, Adj. and Inspr general, Washington' Keith H99 (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

US casualty data is available via a secondary source compiled 1850 through 1851, and is available via Ancestry. The compiler/editor is Joseph H Eaton, and the document title is: Returns of Killed and Wounded in Battles or Engagements with Indians and British and Mexican Troops, 1790–1848. The web address is https://www.ancestry.ca/search/collections/3652/ Keith H99 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That first quote is muddled. 24 killed, 115 wounded, and 74 missing relates to the night battle and is quoted from Quimby, p. 850. I propose going ahead and making the change to state 39 wounded, as this and not 30, keeps appearing. It is probably worth mentioning that when you look at casualties solely for the left bank, it almost halves the total casualties. Keith H99 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A quote from the article

The Battle of New Orleans was remarkable both for its apparent brevity and its casualties, though some numbers are in dispute and contradict the official statistics

Smith and Welsh are quoted, but their "claimed" figures seem to tally with William James's figures based on primary source documentation, which makes that part of the statement misleading. After that, there is to my mind some nationalistic contributor who knows that 484 men played dead, the exact figure of the men taken prisoner. Whilst I don't have a great deal of faith in some conspiracy theory redneck posting on the internet like a latter-day fact bereft Arsène Latour, has there been any work undertaken by academics to determine how many died of wounds in the subsequent days? Were they indeed airbrushed out of the casualty report covering the time period from January 9 to January 26? Given that the British infantry casualty returns (archive reference WO 25) were transcribed for the bicentenary, and the pay & muster sheets for the infantry (archive reference WO 12) were digitised in 2016, this would be ripe for further investigation. Anyone with access to the two subscription sites could access it anywhere in the world. Keith H99 (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any merit in the following POV which does not properly cite its assertions. (The same contributor used information about the British attack on December 14 at Lake Borgne as evidence of a second British attack against New Orleans in January 1815, it being an amphibious operation.)

Around 484 British soldiers had pretended to be dead; they rose up and surrendered to the Americans when the shooting stopped.[1.Dubious] The standard protocol of the British Army during the nineteenth century was to only include in the killed column the soldiers who died during the battle. Soldiers who died of wounds the following day or following week were not considered "killed" in the British casualties list. They were counted as "wounded" only.[2. citation needed] Colonel Arthur P. Hayne and Adjutant General Robert Butler were ordered by Jackson to count the British casualties immediately after the battle.[3.Dubious] On January 13 they both reported to Jackson that around 700 British troops were killed, and this was including British soldiers who died of wounds that were treated by the Americans. Many British officers[4. nonspecific] who were counted as "wounded" in the official British casualties list succumbed to their injuries in the days after the battle as confirmed by written accounts of the battle by other British officers.

1. In most instances, wounded men left behind are the most likely to get taken prisoner, rather than uninjured men. This piece of fantasy is contradicted by Hayne's report to Jackson. The big question is of all the missing men, how many survived and were repatriated, versus the remainder missing in action presumed killed? How convenient that the specific number of able bodied cowards who surrendered is numerically the same as the 484 missing in action.

2. Hardly a conspiracy, and clearly the opinion of someone who has no experience with data snapshots. Is there evidence of other combatant nations following a different methodology? It would make sense that most of the fatally wounded were left behind following the retreat from the battlefield, and feature as "missing" rather than wounded. As to the question of men who subsequently died of wounds, given this information can be researched anywhere in the world, it does not appear to have been of material importance enough for any historian to research it, and publish their findings.

3. A secondary source states that there is consensus that it was the British who buried most of their dead. I don't imagine Jackson's priority at this point in time was casualty analysis, and I doubt the British would have agreed to the presence of two of Jackson's staff officers corpse counting. Analysis of casualties is different to saying 'ordered by Jackson to count the British casualties immediately after the battle'. Please provide evidence that this methodology was in place.

4. Weasel words, not substantiated by a source. Keith H99 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Reformatted with spacings Keith H99 (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Baratarians serving as "marines"

There is mention of Baratarians serving as "marines" at Fort St Philip by Wilburt Brown. One company was there, out of a total of four companies. I have not seen this elsewhere in primary or secondary sources. Has this been proven or disproven? I presume they were artillerists as opposed to infantry? Keith H99 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In the continued absence of evidence to back it up, the assertion has been removed. Keith H99 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Distinguished service as mentioned in dispatches

I am of the opinion this section is untruthful. The United States Marine Corps mentioned their presence, which I believe was 58 men out of 5,700, on their own website in 2017, and now the link has gone. None of the other sources are contemporary to 1815. How does this provide a meaningful element to the article? These are not instances of being mentioned in the despatches of Jackson, Patterson or their ilk in the aftermath of the battle. Keith H99 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As I recall, this section was enlarged by purging various personalities from throughout the article and relegating their names to it, largely reducing their roles to the recorded remarks, while truncating the fuller story of the battle. There was a lot of chopping of the article. Infobox commanders and leaders was greatly reduced around then, which I see is being built up again. Keep up the good work! Lindenfall (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

New Orleans - British withdrawal

@Nimuda (talk · contribs)

Hello, I put the tag there because it is dubious to base an event in January upon a document signed on another continent the prior month. Rather than deleting the comment, it would make sense to find a better source, and to replace the tag and the Treaty of Ghent. Please do feel free to add a better source, ideally from a book published by a historian, rather than someone's self-published website.Keith H99 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mister-Doctor-Professor-APC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MysticStrike00 (article contribs).

Repositioned for consistency Keith H99 (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Redirection

Nevermind, I found the redirection 2001:569:52CD:F900:D41C:59C3:D106:1EFE (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the link to the song The Battle of New Orleans Keith H99 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Banks: east, west, left, right

Should be consistent. In NOLA, currently, West Bank is Algiers, etc on side of MS river that is connected to the western USA and would be called right bank by the style of a boat going with the flow of the river. Chalmette and the New Orleans French Quarter, etc are on the East Bank. 2600:8807:4062:C000:F1FB:85FC:E247:CF1D (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

General Keane awaiting the arrival of reinforcements

For the past ten years or so, there have been references to "Thomas". Does anyone know what this is?

Keane decided to encamp at Lacoste's Plantation[36] and wait for the arrival of reinforcements. 37 Thomas, p. 61.

It appears to be a thesis: Thomas, Gregory M. (2005). The Battle of New Orleans. Master of Arts dissertation, Louisiana State University

Can anyone suggest a source to use, which documents Keane awaiting the arrival of reinforcements? I am loath to start a new topic, as it will prematurely hive off part of the talk page to the archive. Keith H99 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

His dissertation rephrased Remini, so have used Remini as the source. Keith H99 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point General Keane made one of the most fateful decisions of the campaign. Catching up with Colonel Thornton's force near the Villeré Plantation, Keane instructed him to wait for the second wave of British forces before moving against the city. Thornton urged Keane to let him proceed because, he argued, the Americans had been caught out of position and the city was defenseless - which was true. But Keane was worried about Jackson's strength, reportedly between 15,000 and 20,000 men, so he remained firm and the British halted. His caution allowed Jackson and the Americans to recover from their initial surprise and take hasty countermeasures.19

19 Remini, Andrew Jackson, pp. 259-262. Keith H99 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Major John Michell of the Royal Artillery

This man commanded one of the three artillery batteries that deployed to the Chesapeake in 1814. Of the four batteries at New Orleans, three were to redeploy to the Low Countries in 1815. He was not at Waterloo, but is in the Order of Battle for the Anglo-Allied Army in Flanders and France - 1815 (see below)
https://www.napoleon-series.org/military-info/battles/1815/c_Anglo-Allies1815.html

This man's uncommon spelling surname seems to be mis-spelled in various documents, in the same way that a certain Royal Marine Major's surname is frequently bastardised as "Nichols". (He gets a mention in the London Gazette where his name is mis-spelt as Mitchell.)

Michell later became a general. As you would expect from a general, he is better documented than his contemporaries who never progressed above field rank. The book "Wellington's Guns: The Untold Story of Wellington and His Artillery in the Peninsula and at Waterloo" published in 2013 by Osprey and authored by Nick Lipscombe is worth a read. Michell appears in the chapter about the War of 1812 in volume 2 of the definitive history of the Royal Artillery ("History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery") published in 1873 and authored by Francis Duncan.

His medals were for sale last year, and an impressive write up of the General's military career can be read here. I believe the source of much of this is from Duncan's aforementioned history:
https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/past-catalogues/lot.php?auction_id=531&lot_uid=336797

Lindenfall, hope this is of interest. The biography indicates that he was not exactly a shrinking violet when it came to telling people that he was present at Washington during the War of 1812. Volume 2 of Francis Duncan's history records that after Major Munro, Major Michell was second in seniority of the officers of the Royal Artillery present at New Orleans. Keith H99 (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Also present were five companies of riflemen. They were commanded by Major Samuel Mitchell. I am wondering if this is where there has been some confusion. They disembarked at Bayou Catalan on 22 December 1814, having departed Plymouth, Devon on 18 September 1814. Source: William Henry Cope's regimental history of the Rifle Brigade published in 1877. Keith H99 (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Pages 192-4 of Cope's aforementioned work mention that Mitchell was taken prisoner during the battle, and released on 15 March 1815, so I would imagine this infantry officer features more in American sources.Keith H99 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Keith H99 (talk · contribs) Fascinating stuff. Thank you for your thoroughness. I may have to revisit Cope. I think you're correct about the confusion of Mitchells at the battle. Lindenfall (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Michell was the most senior artillery officer until the arrival of Major Munro and the highly competent Colonel Alexander Dickson. Dickson's papers from the Peninisular Wars formed the basis of Duncan's definitive history of the Royal Artillery. The papers from this time, covering the years 1809 to 1813 were edited, published in 1905 and republished in 1987. Unfortunately, whilst there has been an edit of the papers for the time period 1814 to 1818 which was carried out in 1992, these papers remain unpublished, and are therefore not in the public domain. Keith H99 (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

From within the swathes of Dickson's papers from 1794 to 1840, there is a “Journal of Operations in Louisiana". This was published in The Louisiana Historical Quarterly XLIV, Nos. 3 and 4 (January-April 1961). Forrest's memoir was published in the same editions, and was subsequently printed as a book. The following document quotes extensively from it

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/jela/lost_riverfront/Part_1.pdf Keith H99 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Reilly's book spells his surname as Michell. It mentions that his diary, source 262 is in the possession of the Royal Artillery Institute, as are the papers of Dickson. The quote is on page 305 and not page 296 within Chapter XXII - The Eighth of January. Keith H99 (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My comment on Dickson's journal is not quite right. It has never been published as a book. It was published in 1961 in The Louisiana Historical Quarterly with commentary by Carson I A Ritchie (born 1928). Tracking down a copy seems challenging. In contrast, Dickson's journal was published in 1928 in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, in three parts, with an introduction and annotations by John H Leslie, and can be accessed via JSTOR. Keith H99 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a partial reproduction of the December 1814 entries of Dickson's journals within "The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History, Vol. 4." as published by the Naval Historical Center of the US Navy. Keith H99 (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Note to self: Dr Carson Irvine Alexander Ritchie, born Arbroath(?) 10 July 1928 passed away in Leicester in October 2000 Keith H99 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The time of day of specific events on January 8

There are contradictory times from different sources as to when certain events took place. Sunrise would be 0657hrs, and sunset would be 1717hrs.

For instance, Duncan states ' Sir Edward Pakenham quitted his quarters at 5 A.M. on the 8th.... as it was so nearly daylight, he hesitated as to the wisdom of letting them go, as there would not be time for them to get possession of the works on the other side, and to bring up artillery to enfilade the enemy’s line in support of the general attack, which was to take place at daylight.

Thornton's men are observed by Foelcker's men disembarking on the Right Bank at 5am??? Parton has them disembarking at 4am ???

Is there a secondary source out there that has a timeline for the specific events of that day, that can be used to update this article? Keith H99 (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I am leaning somewhere towards 5:00 A.M. based on the secondary sources.

The Battle of New Orleans: "But for a Piece of Wood" by Ron Chapman:

pg.234 - At about 5:00 A.M., Col. Thorton and only 460 soldiers and sailors with a sprinkling of marines (confusion over size of his force, some accounts say 600 men.) using muffled oars disembarked in their few boats to cross the river. They almost immediately disappeared in the thick fog. At this point, a much more serious problem arose.

No one had bothered to calculate the current of the Mississippi River, which ran at about 5 knots. By simply tossing a piece of driftwood into the stream, the strength of the current could have been measured and calculated. They could then have compensated for the time needed for Thorton to cross the river. But, no one performed that minor task. Failure to do this upset the timing of the coordinated plan. The coming disaster might have been avoided, but for a piece of wood.

Despite their determined efforts to paddle swiftly across the river, the current swept Thorton's troops downstream. One can only imagine the anger and frustration felt by Colonel Thorton. He was an aggressive campaigner and one anxious for success. Finding himself the victim of persistent incompetency and hesitation had to have nearly driven him to the breaking point. Once again, he was placed in a nearly impossible situation as a result of the actions of others.

After an exhausting and too long cross, Thorton and his much reduced force finally touched the Westbank below the Andry Plantation . . . after dawn."

1812: The Navy's War by George Daughan:

pg.389 - "ON THE MORNING of January 8 Pakenham arose at five o'clock to find that Thorton had failed to make it across the river in time to coordinate with him. He was not surprised. He had always been skeptical about Thorton's ability to get his men across the river in a timely fashion. Pakenham was prepared to go on without him."

At six o'clock a heavy mist covered the battle as Dickson got his twenty heavy guns ready. He was to commence firing only when he heard musketry fire. Major General Sir Samuel Gibbs led the main thrust with 2,300 regulars against Jackson's center left. Gibb's column stepped forward, two hundred yards to the left of the cypress swamp. When they were five hundred years from Rodriguez Canal, the fog suddenly lifted, and Jackson's men got a good view of what was coming at them."

Henry Clay and the War of 1812 by Quentin Scott Key:

pg.411 - "As Thorton's units crossed the river, they had not anticipated the river's fast flow and they landed nearly a mile below their planned debarkation point. As they began their firing, on the far side of the river, Pakenham ordered a rocket to be fired signaling the advance of the main body against Jackson's prepared positions. Not only was it now broad daylight, the heavy fog had dissipated revealing the bright red coats of the British troops marching in orderly columns to - disaster." (pg.412) - "It was only 8:30 in the morning when the American infantry ceased fire, having lost an enemy that was now stumbling backward over their own dead and dying. The artillery continued to follow the decimated British until two in the afternoon." Ironic Luck (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's very peculiar that they are talking about sunrise around 5am, and yet in this day and age, sunrise would be at around 7am. If the attack on the left bank was over in 30 minutes, it was a very early start and finish to the day. Keith H99 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There are some specific references to times of the day in the William C Davis book, I am pleased to report.Keith H99 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The only major American victory?

Some POV diatribe was added a while ago, unsourced. and I thought it advisable to challenge what has been put forward. It seems to be very juvenile

Before New Orleans the war was overall a bloody stalemate with not a single overwhelming land battle victory for the Americans against an elite British Army unit (Lake Erie, Plattsburgh, and Baltimore were won primarily due to naval ships and forts near lakes or the ocean). New England as a whole was against the war.

1. This was not the Eastern Front in 1942. Where is the evidence that it was a 'bloody' stalemate?

2. Given the defeat of the "Darth Vader tea-drinking panzergrenadier division" that had just been covered in laurels at its engagement at Hoth, only to be pulverised at Chalmette by Old Hickory and the A-Team, what credentials does this have as an elite British Army unit?

3. Other than Andrew Jackson fanboys, are there reliable sources that do not consider the outcomes of these three battles as significant? I thought there were direct implications in the negotiations at Ghent in 1814 as a result? This was clearly not the case for the outcome of the Battle of New Orleans, although there is of course the separate debate as to whether Britain would have seized the territory. Keith H99 (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)