The Battle of New Orleans: including the Previous Engagements between the Americans; and the British, the Indians and the Spanish which led to; the Final Conflict on the 8th of January, 1815Smith, Z. F. (Zachariah Frederick)
History
The Battle of New Orleans: including the Previous Engagements between the Americans; and the British, the Indians and the Spanish which led to; the Final Conflict on the 8th of January, 1815
Smith, Z. F. (Zachariah Frederick)
New Orleans, Battle of, New Orleans, La., 1815
England was apparently more liberal than Spain or France when, in the
treaty of 1783, she agreed to the Mississippi River as the western
boundary of the United States. Spain was for limiting the territory of
the new republic on the west to the crest of the Alleghany Mountains, so
as to secure to her the opportunity of conquering from England the
territory between the mountains and the Great River. Strangely enough
and inconsistently enough, France supported Spain in this outrageous
effort to curtail the territory of the new republic after she had helped
the United States to conquer it from England, or rather after General
Clark had wrested it from England for the colony of Virginia, and while
Virginia was still in possession of it. The seeming liberality of
England, however, may not have been more disinterested than the scheming
of Spain and France in this affair. England did not believe that the
United States could exist as a permanent government, but that the
confederated States would disintegrate and return to her as colonies.
The King of England said as much when the treaty was made. If, then,
the States were to return to England as colonies, the more territory
they might bring with them the better, and hence a large grant was
acknowledged in the treaty of peace. The acts of England toward the
United States after acknowledging their independence indicate that the
fixing of the western boundary on the Mississippi had as much
selfishness as liberality, if indeed it was not entirely selfish.
The ink was scarcely dry upon the parchment which bore evidence of the
ratified treaty of 1783 when the mother country began acts of hostility
and meanness against her children who had separated from her and begun a
political life for themselves. When the English ships of war, which had
blockaded New York for seven long years, sailed out of the harbor and
took their course toward the British Isles, instead of hauling down
their colors from the flagstaff of Fort George, they left them flying
over the fortification, and tried to prevent them from being removed by
chopping down all the cleats for ascent, and greasing the pole so that
no one could climb to the top and pull down the British flag or replace
it by the colors of the United States. An agile sailor boy, named Van
Arsdale, who had probably ascended many trees in search of bird's nests,
and clambered up the masts of ships until he had become an expert
climber, nailed new cleats to the flagstaff and climbed to its summit,
bearing with him the flag of the new republic. When he reached the top
he cut down the British flag and suspended that of the United States.
This greasy trick may have been the act of some wag of the retiring
fleet, and might have been taken for a joke had it not been followed by
hostile acts which indicated that this was the initial step in a long
course of hostility and meanness.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account