[QUOTE=Mk VII]
I’d say New Orleans was unnecessary (and, of course, irrelevant to the outcome of the war, the treaty had already been signed but nobody knew about it yet). If it had succeeded (and it might well have done against a less capable opponent than Jackson) it might have ratcheted up the pressure a bit but hat’s all. Meanwhile President Madison’s administration was now anxious to end the war while they still had the option to do so on tolerable terms. Things could only get worse.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I don’t see any reason why, had the Brits won, they would have just blithely turned it back over to the US, treaty or no treaty. Not having paid for the place in blood and treasure. I agree, it was an unnecessary battle, considering that there had already been a peace treaty signed, but I think that it was an essential win for the US, both in terms of what the real consequences would have been had we lost, and also in terms of demonstrating that the US could, given circumstances, stand up to a European army and win a decisive victory. We has shown in several engagements that we COULD fight in a set piece fashion before (and at least hold our own given rough parity of forces on a given field), but never against a force of that magnitude. I’m not saying that it put us on par with Europe (it most certainly didn’t…we weren’t doing things on anywhere near the same scale or magnitude), but it demonstrated that we weren’t easy meat either.
-XT