Talk:Battle of New Orleans

Artillery in the historiography of the battle

In terms of getting a feel for the history of an event, it can be useful to get a feel for the historiography since the date it occurred and the present. Theodore Roosevelt mentions in his writings on the war of 1812 how British and American retellings of events in the nineteenth century are selective in their use of facts, so as to put forward their nationalistic agenda, with Sir Archibald Alison being singled out for this practice. In some cases, there is a lack of transparency as to where certain content has come from. In a more extreme case, Augustus Caesar Buell went so far as to fabricate primary sources in support of his agenda. Buell is in favor of the rifleman myth as the main source of casualties to the British, and has presented faked evidence to support this.

The following appears in a magazine article in 1897 authored by William Hugh Robarts and is partly reproduced in Stanley Clisby Arthur's book

My riflemen killed and wounded 2117 in less than an hour.... I heard a single rifle shot from a group of country carts we had been using, and a moment thereafter I saw Pakenham reel and pitch out of his saddle. I have always believed he fell from the bullet of a free man of color, who was a famous rifle shot and came from the Attakapas region of Louisiana. I did not know where General Pakenham was lying or I should have sent to him, or gone in person, to offer any service in my power to render. I was told he lived two hours after he was hit. His wound was directly through the liver and bowels.

I am of the opinion this letter from Jackson to Monroe was probably dug out of the back of the same sofa as some of Buell's fabrications.

None of the above is reflected in Jackson's communication to Monroe on January 9, and he first mentions he believes that Pakenham has died in his subsequent communication to Monroe dated January 13.

William Davis believes Pakenham was killed by artillery fire, and his footnotes go into detail about this. Robin Reilly shares the same opinion, and looks to debunk the rifleman myth which downplays the efficiency of Jackson's gunners.

Should there not be more of a mention of how the rifleman myth came into being, and how in later years this has been questioned as more of a romanticised nationalistic myth? There's a similar myth with the British Expeditionary Force of 1914, whereby their effective and rapid rifle fire was "believed" to be machine gun fire by the Germans, according to subsequent english language accounts... except there is no source-based evidence from Germany in support of this wartime propaganda. Keith H99 (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Davis mentions this very quote, and also that Stanley Clisby Arthur naively reproduced Buell's fakery in spades! Keith H99 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

An interesting comment on how the rifleman myth is presented in a fairly recent publication.

'The most myth-filled American account, by Dr. Robert Remini, reports, “The Tennessee and Kentucky riflemen never seemed to miss a target,” but just a paragraph earlier he cited British Lieutenant Gleig’s memoirs to show that “‘the Americans, without so much as lifting their faces above the rampart, swung their firelocks by one arm over the wall.’” Short of x-ray vision, the Americans could not have aimed such shots.'

A wry observation from the Mimir's Well blogger. Keith H99 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This month, I have found it surprising that the considerable role of the US Navy during the campaign seems to have been understated, presumably because it does not tie in with the rifleman myth of the historiography of the Battle of New Orleans.Keith H99 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style guidance re: national varieties of English

Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic

While (not whilst ;-) ) this article obviously has an important British element, it should be as apparent that the strongest tie is to American history, thus the use of American English in this article is appropriate. 2603:6080:E00:4F67:B4D7:F962:E12A:6D51 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The perception of "one nation" with the Era of Good Feelings - then, and now?

A while back, there were some bold edits with a strong nationalistic tone by a new wikipedia editor with a clear agenda. Most of the POV essay fell by the wayside, but the following remained in the article until very recently.

The victory at New Orleans effectively kept the United States unified for the next 45 years until the American Civil War

As it stands, it does imply there was "one nation under the intoxicated spell of a poisoned apple", to paraphrase George Clinton, from February 17, 1815 through April 12, 1861, that came to and started to immediately fight their neighbors.

While the causes of the civil war, and also the extent to which there was "unity" of all "states" is something of a separate issue, I was thinking there does seem to be an aspect of historiography, that tells us that the young nation felt united in the aftermath of the victory at New Orleans, and this should get more of a mention. The popular literature that I have seen does seem to share the sentiment of the quote above, and the move towards manifest destiny.

It may be sentimental hogwash, when given deeper scrutiny, and as much of a modern creation as Thanksgiving arguably is, but should this be mentioned further, whether as a sentiment that existed for the decades after the war, or as a mythical retelling that has become a narrative of "established history"? Keith H99 (talk) Keith H99 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on other stuff at the moment. Do you have any sources at hand that shed light on this? Carlstak (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Not to hand, this was more of a prompt to me to follow up on this in due course, but to see if any other editors had also been looking at this topic..... Keith H99 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

An interesting quote from a wiki editor who has contributed here, and considerably so to the War of 1812 article, which flies in the face of "one nation"

I would hesitate to call the American government of 1812-1814 a failed state, but dysfunctional might well cover it. America was on a direct march to the American Civil War in 47 years. It literally couldn't get its act together enough to fight a war that it might very well lose. It shows up throughout the war. It couldn't agree on a taxation scheme that would pay for the war. And, America couldn't agree on annexing Canada. Finally, President Madison said and unequivocal NO. So, let us talk about the evolution of views. I didn't know that about annexation [of Canada], I had to research it. I thought I knew better, I was wrong. I changed my stance. But, I see lots and I mean lots of the same repeated annexation arguments... It takes serious levels of investment and training in logistics to run a successful campaign. Neither side did that very well. Let us get to the heart of the matter. This was a minor war in the grand scheme of things. It was also a complex war on multiple levels.

Interesting.Keith H99 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Battle of Villeré's Plantation into Battle of New Orleans

I am of the opinion that this overlap is WP:REDUNDANT and ought to be merged with the article about the overall engagement from December 1814 through January 1815.

Whilst this is another "bar brawl" elevated to a "battle" by a wikipedia editor creating an article, I have never seen a book that has been written solely to cover this, and fail to see how this meets the general notability guidelines. Instead, the published sources cover this as an element, not a standalone "Gettysburg" type engagement. Keith H99 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge - Yes does seem to be part of the larger battle really. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep The Battle of New Orleans article is specifically about the battle on 8 January 1815. Furthermore, the sources present specifically refer to the Battle of Villeré's Plantation as a battle that is part of the New Orleans campaign rather than being part of the Battle of New Orleans itself Lazarbeem (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the following comment applies here Sources do not evidence notability and I am not seeing any rationale to address this in what you have written.

I'd also expect better sourcing than bits and pieces off the internet for a more credible article. Keith H99 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

What about the sources about the result of the battle? How it was described as a British tactical victory but an American strategic victory? Lazarbeem (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd see the initial advantage of the British as similar to the initial advantage of the Germans at the start of the six week Battle of the Bulge, it was perhaps a hiccup but perhaps a good example of losing a firefight to win a battle. (I don't think the British got whooped this bad by either the Argentinians 1806-7 or by the Egyptians in 1807, and they were pretty humiliating times.)

To date, I have never seen a book published solely about the night engagement of December 23, 1814. My opinion does not matter, and your opinion does not matter. Unless we can find reliable sources that consider this engagement as a standalone action in its own right and meeting the WP:GNG requirement, as opposed to being a part of the overall fighting between Jackson versus the British, then I think the existing three paragraphs should be merged with the Battle of New Orleans article.

Your statement What about the sources about the result of the battle?

does not address my comment that the existing Sources do not evidence notability.

Reliable sources are defined as those with a good reputation and a solid editorial process. Blogs, tabloid journalism, and sponsored content are not to be used. Peer-reviewed industry journals can be used where appropriate.

If my hypothesis is incorrect, please do provide substantive evidence in support. Keith H99 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

There were battles within the Battle of the Bulge, similar to how this battle and the Battle of New Orleans are part of the New Orleans campaign Lazarbeem (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

It is still the case that [Reliable] Sources do not evidence notability for this skirmish within the wider engagement. Have you found any in support? If not, the article should be merged, with the larger article from which some of the material was purloined earlier this year. This seems to be turning into a WP:BLUDGEON in order to retain the article that you created. Keith H99 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

How is this a bludgeon? I'm just trying to explain why the two articles should remain separate. Also how sources such as the Bill of Rights Institute unreliable? Lazarbeem (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You are referring to one website. What is of interest is that the tertiary source article, with no identified author, refers to the Battle of New Orleans, and does not talk specifically about the engagement of December 23rd as being notable in itself. As things stand, there are still no reliable sources that consider this as notable and standalone, rather than an element in a larger engagement. Keith H99 (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The aforementioned tertiary source contains seventeen paragraphs, of which two refer to the engagement of December 23rd. The message I am still getting is that this is not standalone and notable.

This tertiary source is a well-written primer, and directs the reader to other sources, but I would not see this as authoritative.Keith H99 (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge - per KeithH99. Good-faith article creation, but there's insufficient RS coverage or military/political significance for a standalone article. The additional content can be competently covered in the parent page. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep There's clearly a difference between an engagement which took place in December 1814 and one which took place in January 1815 Regna sereno intenso ed infinito (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the following comment applies here Sources do not evidence notability and I am not seeing any rationale to address this in what you have written.

I'd also expect better sourcing than bits and pieces off the internet for a more credible article. I think this is like your comment on the Articles for deletion/Nationalist-13 insofar as your comment does not address the underlying issue of a lack of notability Keith H99 (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Who authorized you to move the article? We haven't come to a conclusion yet Lazarbeem (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

A stub article was created about the engagement between General Jackson and the British on December 23, 1814. Some of the content of Battle of New Orleans was used, to create the stub article. This destination article has been in existence since November 15, 2002 and nobody has seen fit in that time period to consider the December 23 engagement as standalone and separate.

Based upon the principles of wikipedia, it does not meet the general notability guidelines. I proposed that it be merged with the article on the overall engagement from December 1814 through January 1815. There were two editors that agreed with the merge. Lazarbeem, and his sidekick Regna sereno intenso ed infinito said the article should be kept. Neither of them has provided an argument in support of notability.

If it has been the case that reliable sources had produced standalone books about this engagement, then I would see there being an argument for this as notable. Instead, it is a paragraph or two within an overall body of work encompassing the conflict in December 1814 and January 1815.

There are instances where "the internet says.." something about this, but again, it is usually a smaller part of an article about the overall two months of the fighting within the War of 1812.

You have done nothing to plausibly address the question of notability, so I merged the article. As I have not seen the underlying issue addressed, I have been bold, and merged the stub with the bigger article. Keith H99 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

"This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain."

This phrase was automatically suffixed to every book over a certain age, at the start of 2025.

Talk:Battle of New Orleans/Archive 2#Cite book and url links to google books

Is there any way of being able to identify where the article genuinely does incorporate text? I think this is misleading and untruthful.

The "improvement" comes across to me as an example of how "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" Keith H99 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

See also

User talk:Hhfjbaker/Archives/2025/02 (February)#Your recent edits to Battle of New Orleans

Mentioned here too. Keith H99 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Private Andrea Dimitry in the battle

@Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah

Given that Andrea Dimitry was not commanding a large body of men in the battle, I am going to remove him from the infobox.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose.

• Link to a discussion about the correct use of the infobox on wikipedia articles about battles.

  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 177#The infobox for battle articles, what should be omitted

I do not see how he is WP:GNG in any way relative to this battle. I had never heard of this private soldier before today.

Due to his contributions in the war, Dimitry remains an American hero and local legend.

I disagree with this hagiographic comment, in the continued absence of source-based evidence.

In accordance with the principles of wikipedia, and in particular WP:BRD I thought it wise to discuss on the talk page.Keith H99 (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not have strong opinions. I randomly found Dimitry's article yesterday and thought of restructuring its contents. Reading through it, I believed he was a good fit for the infobox of this article, seeing both the descriptions of Dimitry which were already present in his own Wiki page and the fact that a subject without a Wiki page was already in the infobox here (Robert Rennie). Feel free to revert me though, if you want. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

Private Andrea Dimitry should be removed, and I think it worthwhile removing Lieutenant Colonel Rennie, given he is not a General, either. Keith H99 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)