Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

1812 Re: December 28, 1814, New Orleans

Expand Messages
  • usmarine1814
    Yikes and Yes!!! I stand corrected. Geez, I should (do) know that! Not very sharp in these early days of the new year. Hopefully my mind clears like the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 3, 2012
      Yikes and Yes!!! I stand corrected. Geez, I should (do) know that! Not very sharp in these early days of the new year. Hopefully my mind clears like the morning fog over the plains of Chalmette. Thank You
      C. Murphy
      USS CON 1812 MG
      USMCHC

      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Michael Mathews <memathews@...> wrote:
      >
      > The night action was on the 23rd.  Very much a confused affair.  I recall that
      > Plauché (whose battalion of uniformed militia was included in the attack)
      > claimed afterwards that he wanted to lead a bayonet charge with his French and
      > Irish that would "have compelled the lot to lay down their arms" but was denied
      > permission because of the already present danger of friendly fire.  Naturally a
      > night action distorts ones perspective and leads to exaggerated claims.
      >
      > The action on the 28th was indeed a recon-in-force by the British.
      >
      > Best,
      > Michael
      >
      >    ---------------------------------
      > No act of kindness, however small is ever wasted. -- Aesop
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: usmarine1814 <usmarine1814@...>
      > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 10:22:07 AM
      > Subject: 1812 Re: December 28, 1814, New Orleans
      >
      >  
      > Was not the Battle of the 28th a night battle? Started By the Louisiana as she
      > snuck down the river disguised by darkness and the probability of her being just
      > a trade vessel? She then opened on the British camp, directing her fire by the
      > Brits' campfires. This was then followed by a two column assault by Jackson. A
      > confusing fight ensued. The MArines supported the two American guns that were in
      > action along the levee. I did not think those guns were under the command of the
      > Barritarians. Either way I believe both forces disengaged because of the
      > confusion.
      >
      >
      > C Murphy
      > USS CON 1812 MG
      > USMCHC
      >
      > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "ONeil" <denoux3124@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Reconnaissance-in-Force. At dawn, the British advance in two columns, one at
      > >the river, one near the swamp. The Americans stand behind the
      > >partially-constructed rampart behind the small Rodriguez Canal. The British have
      > >twice their number. Cannons fire on both sides as USS Louisiana swoops down to
      > >fire on the advancing British. The line staggers from American artillery. At the
      > >swamp's edge the British are at the gates, almost flanking the American line. At
      > >the critical moment, Gen. Pakenham calls a retreat as his companies are
      > >decimated by cannon fire. He's learned a hard lesson, artillery wins battles and
      > >the American cannoneers, especially the Baratarians, are lethal.
      > > from BATTLE KISS, Part 3, "The Battle of New Orleans" by O'Neil De Noux
      > >http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Kiss-New-Orleans/dp/1466499052
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.