EyeBrock EyeBrock:
But I’m not going to let jingoistic nationalism get in the way of the facts, it’s obvious that the British Army were soundly beaten at New Orleans.
This was not a failure of the British Army,
per se, but a failure of intelligence and strategy. The loss at New Orleans also illustrates the importance of the Mississippi River to Britain and the loss makes clear why Britain did not want that river in American control.
On strategy the British failed after the US War of Independence when they didn't insist on drawing US borders along the crest of the Appalachian. Instead they tacitly permitted the US into the Ohio valley while simultaneously thinking that it would be years before the US would access the Mississippi. Then the Louisiana Purchase occured and caught the British outmanuvered in the overall strategy to contain the US.
This left the Mississippi open to allow US reinforcements and supplies to quickly make their way to New Orleans without any British observation.
The second intelligence failure was in dismissing the activities of the French privateers as inconsequential. While the Royal Navy did concern itself with the French privateers they were not a priority as the prevailing wisdom was that the US would not openly ally itself with pirates and that the pirates would not risk prosecution by US authorities.
The combination conspired to lead the British Army to properly estimate the New Orleans garrison and the force that the British Army deployed against this garrison was well trained, adequately supplied, and had an impressive amount of artillery for the assault on New Orleans. They did not at all consider potential American reinforcements.
In strategy the British Army repeatedly failed to exploit American vulnerabilities by not being aggressive in seizing the initiative when American forces lost key engagements. Just my own humble opinion, but the habit of the British foot soldier of the day to knock off in the afternoon and brew up a pot of tea probably had more to do with this than any lack of initiative on the part of their commanders.
These missed opportunities allowed the Americans precious time to put up defenses and to prepare the sides of the various creeks and canals by removing vegetation that would have made it easier for the British Army to cross. In several instances local American commanders inadvertantly hampered the British advance when they threw up earthworks along the creeks and canals. The easiest dirt for the American soldiers to use was that from along the banks and the result was the widening of these creeks and canals sometimes by as much as fifteen feet. Unbeknownst to the Americans this act rendered much of the British bridging and fording equipment useless.
When the British forces did reach some of the earthworks their ladders ended up being too short and their bridging and fording equipment was then inadequate. This left all too many British units mired in mud and water at the bottom of these creeks and canals with Americans shooting down at them from above.
It is along these lines where the British Army suffered its worst losses.
On an aside, the British inclination to throw troops at heavily entrenched opponents at a huge cost in blood recurs in every war of theirs up through World War One. Forgive me, but I find the contemptuous attitude of British Army brass towards the ranks of times past to be despicable. That the British ended up with nearly fifty times the losses of the Americans in this engagement speaks less kindly of British officers than it does of the accidents of fortune that blessed otherwise woefully outmatched American forces.
Back on topic, in the instances of the overall battle where British intelligence was more or less accurate the Americans suffered severe and embarrassing losses with the one exception being a US fort that held out for several days against Royal Navy bombardment.
In sum, had the British controlled the Mississippi as they wanted to then the Americans would have lost at New Orleans.
It is a fine point of the outcome of the war but Britain and the United States came to a later agreement that permitted British merchant shipping unfettered and untaxed (by the US) shipping on the Mississippi via the Great Lakes with land transhipment at Chicago. When the Chicago canal between the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan was built that right transferred to Canada. To my knowledge this agreement is still in effect today and Canadian flag vessels can use the canal and river freely to get to and from the Gulf of Mexico.
CKA Moderator 
Junior Member 
[/quote]![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
CKA Uber 
