New Orleans mattered once

Next up on the LOCKDOWN List: Kilmeade and (second-billing) Yaeger, Miracle of New Orleans. Basic, star-spangled account of rah rah 1812. I do find a few points of interest, though.

First up is that the battle mattered. I admit: I didn't know it mattered. I bought into that whole eccchshually line, that it was fought after the treaty was signed. Well... yeah, but there was fine-print on that pact; the Brits held the line at the territory "already" conquered. The Brits were convinced they were, in that meantime - given a little leeway to get the treaty over to Washington City - about to conquer New Orleans and maybe also Mobile, with a taste of Spanish Pensacola. If the Brits had occupied these cities, Madison's government was not going to be able to dislodge them short another war, which the Americans didn't want, because up to then they'd been losing.

Another interesting point that seems to have been lost on all sides (except Andrew Jackson's, and maybe Henry Clay's) is that New Orleans was the United States' most vulnerable and most vital point-of-entry, especially for Tennessee on up. President Madison and the first two War Secretaries he ran through thought they were conquering Ontario. New England thought Madison was an idiot (they were right). The Brits thought they were out to teach some Yankee dogs a lesson, by striking Maryland. It took at least a year before the major players realised - wait a minute, America has rivers, and that geography points south to the Gulf.

The Gulf Coast, in those times, was (legally) divided into Mississippi Territory, the Spanish coast "Florida" east of Mobile on the Alabama river, and New Orleans. New Orleans was basically French. Jefferson had "bought" it from Emperor Napoleon who had stolen it (back) from the Spaniards, owners of the territory by a treaty signed with an earlier French government.

But who actually lived in all that land? Modern "revisionists" - who aren't revising anything anymore - will say "derr duh Indians I mean First Nations". Well... up northwest, sure. But we are talking 1812, when nobody dared venture to Arkansas et al.. The land at stake in 1812 was northeast. Different Indians lived in Mississippi Territory: Shawnee, Cherokee, and Creek. The Creek were the most dangerous of these, being led by one of those métis guys.

Andrew Jackson, being about the first American to understand where the real war was, could just about get to New Orleans by boat but he wasn't going to keep it unless the Indian Nations were sweet. So that is what he set out to ensure, largely despite the bumbling from his Washington command.

Also frightening (if you're American) is how close Jackson was to death the whole time. He was battling dysentery and some serious wounds, not all inflicted by enemies. You heard it right: Jackson was a dueling man, a border-ruffian through and through. Without Jackson's eye for geography I am unsure the Americans were set to keep the Gulf Coast. The Brits likely wouldn't have been able to hold it either, nor even the Spaniards... directly. I suspect the correct British play here would have been to set up a Creek protectorate along the Alabama river, with New Orleans as a chartered "Free City" a la Goa or Macao. (Hong Kong was a city of 1842.)