A Google user
Remini is extremely meticulous about historical accuracy as usual. One thing about the battle of New Orleans is how British revisionists always avoid it, or give that same ole lame mantra, "If the British army and navy were not busy elsewhere it would have been a different outcome." Talk about stark bias revisionism!
*
The truth is at the time Britain invaded New Orleans they were no longer busy with Napoleon. They sent a massive armada against the crescent city with the full intention of keeping it in spite of the ante bellum clause in the treaty of Ghent. The excuse that raids along the U.S. East coast were nothing more than chastisements for American incursions into Canada are also an attempt to mitigate the evils of British depredations and base behavior in Hampton Virginia. But more importantly, those raids were a military feint (as the status quo ante bellum clause in the treaty was a diplomatic feint) so as to draw American forces away from the south west.
*
In the end an extremely powerful british navy and army was bested by a much smaller American force. It should rightly go down in the books as a second humiliation for Britain. And it is that humiliation which is driving intense British revisionism concerning this particular piece of history.
*
British nationalists and authors are churning out more and more subtle and bold propaganda concerning the War of 1812 and American historians and authors need to counter it honestly and effectively. Robert V Remini is one such author, so is Winston Groom. The war of 1812 was not an overwhelming political or territorial victory for the U.S., but New Orleans was a time enduring victory for Andrew Jackson and his soldiers over the British, as were the naval battles which American captains won on the Lakes. In this venue America won the battle of world opinion and international respect in 1815.