Andrew Jackson loses the Battle of New Orleans?

Say Jackson's army loses the Battle of New Orleans to the British in early 1815. The Treaty of Ghent has already been signed, so this does not effect the outcome of the War of 1812, but it should scupper Jackson's career. So how does the United States develop with Andrew Jackson?
 
Last edited:
Say Jackson's army loses the Battle of New Orleans to the British in early 2015. The Treaty of Ghent has already been signed, so this does not effect the outcome of the War of 1812, but it should scupper Jackson's career. So how does the United States develop with Andrew Jackson?
The real question is why are they fighting in 2015? Does the BP Oil Spill lead to war between the US and Britain? Also, how does Andrew Jackson manage to be alive over a century after he died? Unless, of course, you meant 1815.
 
The real question is why are they fighting in 2015? Does the BP Oil Spill lead to war between the US and Britain? Also, how does Andrew Jackson manage to be alive over a century after he died? Unless, of course, you meant 1815.
You're a funny guy.
 
Want a big part of why he was elected because he was the hero of New Orleans? If so, this would likely butterfly away his presidency.

It wouldn't make much of a difference to the war thigh since it was officially over since the treaty of Ghent had been signed already. Anglo-American relations would probably be worse pussy-war though.
 
Seriously, Jackson himself would probably not be very well remembered. Probably only as a Tennesse senator, as well as a guy who lost some battle after a war was over. He would almost assuradly not become President, since that was basically only because he did so well. The battle probably would not be very well remembered, even forgotton, because it occured after peace was signed.
 
Seriously, Jackson himself would probably not be very well remembered. Probably only as a Tennesse senator, as well as a guy who lost some battle after a war was over. He would almost assuradly not become President, since that was basically only because he did so well. The battle probably would not be very well remembered, even forgotton, because it occured after peace was signed.
Well he wouldn't become a senator either. In this scenario he's likely to be court martialed for declaring military law in New Orleans and arresting a judge. But I'm more interested in how the US would develop without him, rather than discussing his alternate life.

Are there comparable Seminole Wars?
Does the US still get Florida? At the same time in the same way?
What does the election of 1824 look like?
etc
 
Well he wouldn't become a senator either. In this scenario he's likely to be court martialed for declaring military law in New Orleans and arresting a judge. But I'm more interested in how the US would develop without him, rather than discussing his alternate life.

Are there comparable Seminole Wars?
Does the US still get Florida? At the same time in the same way?
What does the election of 1824 look like?
etc
Right, he was a senator in the 1820s, but a House member in the 1790s.

One difference I can think of would be that Jacksonian Democracy never comes about, meaning that the elites continue to dominate the US' politics, with the lower classes never gaining as much power as they did in OTL.
 
One difference I can think of would be that Jacksonian Democracy never comes about, meaning that the elites continue to dominate the US' politics, with the lower classes never gaining as much power as they did in OTL.
Jackson would never have been elected without the development of the more democratic systems, he was their product, not their producer.
 
Well, assuming that JQA still runs for President, we most likely get a second term...maybe. Also, maybe Clay as well.

Right, he was a senator in the 1820s, but a House member in the 1790s.

One difference I can think of would be that Jacksonian Democracy never comes about, meaning that the elites continue to dominate the US' politics, with the lower classes never gaining as much power as they did in OTL.
so.....Harrissonian Federalism then?

Would no Jackson put a 1812 general as another presidential candidate (and yes, such as William Henry Harrison)
 
One thing the Battle of New Orleans does is that it allows the US to portray the war as a victory for the US, instead of a draw that many historians see it as. This perceived victory causes an era of good feelings that lead the US to believe that they have a greater destiny. Some historians believe that the idea of Manifest Destiny can be traced back to the belief that the Us won the War of 1812 more of less.

If you remove that idea then the US might not ever develop the idea of Manifest Destiny, which in turn would really change how the US developed.

The French might still control Louisiana, Native American Nations might even become possible. It is funny but a battle that did nothing to change the outcome of the war could have shaped the entire 19th century for the US.
 
The French might still control Louisiana, Native American Nations might even become possible. It is funny but a battle that did nothing to change the outcome of the war could have shaped the entire 19th century for the US.
We already bought Louisiana from the French several years before 1812, and France is not going to be in a shape to take it back via force anytime soon. With Louisiana already a state, the US is not going to sell the territory to anyone, French or otherwise. At most Britain might buy the upper parts of the huge Louisiana Territory (OTL Dakotas and the stuff west of them or so) and integrate it into Canada. And even that's not certain, American settlers are going to keep moving west regardless of the war. Maybe without the idea of Manifest destiny there would be no Oregon push or war with Mexico, but Louisiana is definitely going to stay American, sadly for the natives within.
 
You are right for some reason i forgot when we purchased Louisiana.

I still think that further expansion of the US would be blunted.
 
The late Robert Remini argued that "although the treaty [of Ghent] had been signed it had not been ratified by either country, and it is certain that had the British won the Battle of New Orleans the treaty would have been repudiated or drastically altered to take such a victory into account." http://books.google.com/books?id=74IjtfEU_LkC&pg=PT193&lpg=PT193

Elsewhere Remini wrote: "Secretary Monroe stated the situation concisely to Madison: Had Jackson lost the Battle of New Orleans, Britain would have insisted that the entire Gulf Coast belonged to Spain, arguing that the Treaty of Ghent did not apply and that American claims to this area were specious because Mobile had been illegally seized and Louisiana illegally purchased. Thus Jackson's victory did more than simply demonstrate the excellence of American arms on the battlefield. It prevented the almost certain detachment of the entire Gulf Coast area (and maybe all of Louisiana as well) which would have been a major catastrophe for the United States had it happened. In a sense, then, Jackson's victory legitimized or legalized--if conquest ever legalizes--the Louisiana Purchase, which France had no business selling in the first place." http://books.google.com/books?id=7aw-AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT314 (The British position was that France had no right to sell to the United States since the Treaty of San Ildefonso of 1800, by which Napoleon had forced Spain to surrender Louisiana to him, specifically stated that France would not sell or otherwise alienate the territory without first offering to return it to Spain.)

My own view is that the British *might* be tempted at first after a victory at New Orleans to say that the Treaty of Ghent did not apply and that New Orleans and Mobile should be returned to Spain--or at the very least to make return to the US contingent on US concessions on the issues left unresolved at Ghent. However, IMO any such temptation would end the instant the news came that Napoleon had escaped from Elba. If the British hadn't turned all captured territory over to the US before that point, that would surely be enough to convince them to do so.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The British had a difficult time winning on the offensive

against the US in prepared positions in 1814, as the results of Hampstead Hill, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans all make clear - so, how exactly, does Pakenham do any better than he did historically?

Much less better than Ross and Prevost did, in their theaters?

Don't forget, Wellington had already advised Liverpool to make peace before the news of New Orleans, when the Duke said "thanks, but no thanks" to the American mission that Liverpool had offered...so the British had already made their decision for peace before the news of New Orleans.

Two decades straight of fighting had been enough, thank you very much.

Best,
 
Top