Lots of people had slaves back then. It does not make Andrew Jackson less of a good leader. George Washington had slaves.

A Theist, I wonder if you knew that the Battle of New Orleans, which you seem to think changed the tides of the war, was fought after both sides had agreed to a treaty. Yeah, war was already over. The message just hadn't got to Jackson yet.

---

(July 31, 2012 at 11:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: I have to give a nod to the British in this as well, in the end, their troubles with the colonies just weren't worth as much as it cost them. If the British wanted to legitimately crush the States at any point in the first hundred years or so of their existence, if they were committed to doing so completely, they could have easily done so. I guess it just wasn't topping any lists of priorities.

That is not true at all. They were struggling financially because they had themselves stretched so thin with France. It was a priority, particularly during the American Revolution. Letters between governors here and members of Parliament/the King there, make that pointedly clear. They just didn't have the resources. The same went for the War of 1812. They relied on the resources (people) of Canada to even get a "who knows who won?" on that one.

In fact battle of New Orleans had zero effect on the outcome of the war, or on the terms of the treaty ending it, and later ratified.

As might be expected of pentacostals, he howls nonsense like an lobotomized monkey and believes he is receiving inspiration from a desert goatfucker's god.

(July 31, 2012 at 11:55 am)Shell B Wrote: Lots of people had slaves back then. It does not make Andrew Jackson less of a good leader. George Washington had slaves.

A Theist, I wonder if you knew that the Battle of New Orleans, which you seem to think changed the tides of the war, was fought after both sides had agreed to a treaty. Yeah, war was already over. The message just hadn't got to Jackson yet.

---

(July 31, 2012 at 11:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: I have to give a nod to the British in this as well, in the end, their troubles with the colonies just weren't worth as much as it cost them. If the British wanted to legitimately crush the States at any point in the first hundred years or so of their existence, if they were committed to doing so completely, they could have easily done so. I guess it just wasn't topping any lists of priorities.

That is not true at all. They were struggling financially because they had themselves stretched so thin with France. It was a priority, particularly during the American Revolution. Letters between governors here and members of Parliament/the King there, make that pointedly clear. They just didn't have the resources. The same went for the War of 1812. They relied on the resources (people) of Canada to even get a "who knows who won?" on that one.

No. I never said that the Battle of New Orleans changed the tide of the war. I said that the four day naval battle at Fort Meigs changed the tide of the war. Yes. I knew that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after a treaty had already been signed but neither General Packenham or Andrew Jackson knew that since news hadn't reached them yet. The Battle of New Orleans was still significant since it thwarted British hopes of stopping America's expansion westward beyond the Mississippi River.

Here is a book you might like to read.

"how Britain won the war of 1812"

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1215

(July 31, 2012 at 12:09 pm)A Theist Wrote: The Battle of New Orleans was still significant since it thwarted British hopes of stopping America's expansion westward beyond the Mississippi River.

No, it didn't. They were going to leave, anyway.

(July 31, 2012 at 12:13 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Here is a book you might like to read.

"how Britain won the war of 1812"

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1215

Basically britain, whose navy outmatch the Americans in weight of broadsides 100 to 1, won by setting the bar for winning so low that it is actually underground.

(July 31, 2012 at 11:55 am)Shell B Wrote: Lots of people had slaves back then. It does not make Andrew Jackson less of a good leader. George Washington had slaves.

Cool. Did George Washington illegally bring a small army of southern white men to a commune of free black farmers, in Florida, and brutally murder 270 men, women, children, giving away the survivors to whomever claimed to have owned their relatives? Because I don't think he did.

Let's not even forget the 23 million acres of Creek nation, which he stole, without approval from the U.S. government, that he sold to all his slave owning buddies, keeping most of the money for himself, of course.

George Washington was a brilliant military leader, and a decent president. I'm sure he was very flawed in many ways, but probably not Trail of Tears flawed. Just sayin'.

If he's Jackson is anyone's hero, they're fucked up.

Ahh, Calling Washington a brilliant military leader is setting the bar a bit low. His track record was more one of bumbling defeats than one of not too spectacular victories.

Strictly as a military leader, Jackson was probably substantially more formidable than Washington, although he was by no means a really great military leader on the caliber of Lee, Wellington, or Napoleon.

---

(July 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(July 31, 2012 at 12:09 pm)A Theist Wrote: The Battle of New Orleans was still significant since it thwarted British hopes of stopping America's expansion westward beyond the Mississippi River.

No, it didn't. They were going to leave, anyway.

That sort of depend on whether you think the British would have regard themselves bound by the treaty after the war if they had an easy victory and took New Orlean and then had to give New Orlean back by terms of the treaty.

I think even if the British walked over Jackson and took New Orlean, Napoleon's escape from Alba would quickly put paid to any notion the British might have had about continuing the war, or renegotiating the treaty. So the treaty would probably be final irrespective of the outcome of the battle.

(July 31, 2012 at 12:31 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Cool. Did George Washington illegally bring a small army of southern white men to a commune of free black farmers, in Florida, and brutally murder 270 men, women, children, giving away the survivors to whomever claimed to have owned their relatives? Because I don't think he did.

Let's not even forget the 23 million acres of Creek nation, which he stole, without approval from the U.S. government, that he sold to all his slave owning buddies, keeping most of the money for himself, of course.

George Washington was a brilliant military leader, and a decent president. I'm sure he was very flawed in many ways, but probably not Trail of Tears flawed. Just sayin'.

If he's Jackson is anyone's hero, they're fucked up.

The record of his battles would say otherwise. We mythicize these people to no end. I agree with you completely about Jackson btw, complete and utter asswipe. Nevertheless, no country can claim a history made of gleaming marble.

That's true. I get a little edgy about Jackson because of where I live. Every motherfucking thing is named after him from roads, to restaurants, to neighborhoods. I live about 8 miles from his house, and they made us take field trips there every year in school. On the tour it always bothered me that they never mentioned anything that wasn't a charming little tales about his romantic life, and his many drunken antics.