The English were very insistent and for a time there appeared a new danger that the conference would break up. But, as will appear later, British diplomacy, the most skilful in the world, found a way to accomplish the main objective of the Uti Possidetis; that is to say, the retention of Louisiana after the expected reduction of New Orleans.
While these peace negotiations were simmering at Ghent, the well-planned, secret expedition against New Orleans was completed in detail, and with confident feeling of assurance that, because of its size and veteran fibre, it would be invincible, it was finally put on its way to join the waiting troops at Nigril Bay, Jamaica. Sir Edward Pakenham was appointed Commander of the Expeditionary forces. A. C. Buell, in his “History of Andrew Jackson,” published in 1904, states that Pakenham’s order was dated November 4, 1814, and read according to English war office minute; that General Pakenham “shall proceed to Plymouth and embark there for Louisiana to assume command of the forces operating for the reduction of that province.” Buell cites as authority Bathurst papers; State Paper Office, London.
On the assumption of the correctness of Buell’s citation, the term “Province” as applied to Louisiana, in English official orders, represents the radical difference of viewpoint as to Louisiana at the time between the British Government and the American Union, of which the English termed province was a fair possession from which already one state had been carved. (Louisiana in 1812.)
While the British Expedition was ploughing the seas, unexpected resistance was forming under an American general, who didn’t know what defeat was.
CHAPTER VIII.
Negotiations at Ghent—Continued.
We will now return to the parleys at Ghent. The British continued to insist on the Uti Possidetis as a basis of a Peace Treaty, but proposed that it be “subject to such modifications as mutual convenience may be found to require.” In a letter to the British Commissioners, dated October 18th, Lord Bathurst, quoted by Updyke (page 288), cited several points on which mutual accommodations might be had; but Louisiana was not one of the points. For if it had been there would have seemingly been no use planning and sending out the great expedition for the “reduction of that province.”
From many interesting details touching the Uti Possidetis proposals, the reader is referred to Updyke (“The Diplomacy of the War of 1812”), pages 288 to 319.
Finally, realizing the unshaken adherence of the Americans to the antebellum status, the British gave up the Uti Possidetis demand, and by specific wording obviously sought to protect the Louisiana design.
In the amended proposal of the British (see British to American ministers Nov. 26, 1814), there are two things highly pertinent to the inquiry we are conducting, to establish the real value of the Battle of New Orleans. The first was the provision that peace would not be effective until after ratification by both countries. The second consisted in the proposed wording for the mutual restoration clause as follows: “Belonging to either party, taken by the other.” The effect of this wording in the mutual restoration clause, would have been that all territory belonging to either party, taken by the other, should be returned. But this would not embrace Louisiana, for from the English standpoint, it did not legally belong to the United States.
As to the first point, a quotation is here given from Updyke (page 317): “The amended project returned by the British commissioners provided that the notification for the cessation of the war be issued after ratifications of the treaty should have been exchanged rather than at the time of the signature. This was designed, it was supposed, to give time for the completion of the British plans against New Orleans, the successful outcome of which was never doubted.”