Editing Battle of New Orleans (section)

==="Beauty and Booty" controversy===
After the battle, a claim was published by [[George Poindexter]], in a letter dated January 20 to the ''Mississippi Republican'', that Pakenham's troops had used "Beauty and Booty" as a [[Password#History|watchword]]:

{{quote|The watch-word and countersign of the enemy on the morning of the 8th was, BOOTY AND BEAUTY. Comment is unnecessary on these significant allusions held out to a licentious soldiery. Had victory declared on their side, the scenes of Havre de Grace, of Hampton, of Alexandria . . . would, without doubt, have been reacted at New Orleans, with all the unfeeling and brutal inhumanity of the savage foe with whom we are contending.{{sfnp|Poindexter|1815|pp=58–59}}}}

This was republished in [[Niles' Register]],{{sfnp|Poindexter|1815|pp=58–59}} the [[National Intelligencer]] on February 13, and other newspapers.{{sfnp|Eustace|2012|pp=213–215}} Whilst there were criticisms from the Federalist press, as well as from Poindexter's enemies, as to how reliable this information was, it was widely accepted elsewhere. Senator [[Charles Jared Ingersoll]] made direct reference to this in his speech to Congress on February 16, reproduced in full in the ''National Intelligencer''.{{sfnp|Eustace|2012|p=215}} He continued, in an elated manner, 'with the tidings of this triumph from the south, to have peace from the east, is such a fullness of gratification as must overflow all hearts with gratitude.'{{sfnp|Eustace|2012|p=215}} He saw the news of victory at New Orleans against an immoral foe, followed by news of peace, as a positive sentiment to unite the different peoples of the United States,{{sfnp|Eustace|2012|pp=216,220}} the zeitgeist of these postwar years later becoming known as the ''Era of Good Feelings''.

This watchword claim, as originated by Poindexter, was repeated in Eaton's "Life of General Jackson", first published in 1817. A second edition of this biography was published in 1824, when Jackson made his first presidential bid. Further editions were published for the presidential elections of 1828 and 1833.{{sfnp|Eustace|2012|p=229}} Editions from 1824 onwards now contained the claim that documentary evidence proved the watchword was used.{{sfnp|Eaton|1828|p=293}} As a consequence it was reproduced in a travelogue in 1833.{{sfnp|Stuart|1833|pp=142–143}}

Following the publishing of a [[Travel literature|travelogue]] in 1833, whereby the author James Stuart referred to the watchword,{{sfnp|Stuart|1833|pp=142–143}} this hitherto unknown controversy became known in Great Britain. In response to the author, five British officers who had fought in the battle, Keane, Lambert, Thornton, [[Edward Blakeney|Blakeney]] and Dickson, signed a rebuttal in August 1833. It is stated this was published in ''[[The Times]]'' by American sources,{{sfnmp|Arthur|1915|1p=216|Parton|1861|2p=225}} but this is not the case.{{NoteTag|A database search between January 1st and December 31st 1833 does not fetch the rebuttal signed by Blakeney et al.{{sfnp|Gale, ''The Times Digital Archive''|1982}} Meanwhile, in a letter from Stuart to Lambert dated August 24, 1833, "I have no other way of making the important information contained in your [rebuttal] communication generally known, than by sending it for insertion; in the public journals, and by requesting one of my friends at New York to have it inserted in newspapers published there and at Washington."{{sfnp|Stuart|1834|p=105}} In 1852, Ingersoll wrote, "In 1833, all the surviving British commanders... deemed it proper to publish, in an English journal [their rebuttal]."{{sfnp|Ingersoll|1852|p=241}} Which journal is not stated. A Scottish journal. Edinburgh Evening Courant, is the most likely.}} Niles's Register, which originally printed Poindexter's claim, then printed the British rebuttal with the editorial comment, "Six of the principal officers.... have distinctively denied any knowledge [of the watchword].. The following interesting documents have been sent us for insertion.":{{sfnp|Niles|Niles|Hughes|Beatty|1834|p=121}}

{{quote|We, the undersigned, serving in that army, and actually present, and through whom all orders to the troops were promulgated, do, in justice to the memory of that distinguished officer who commanded and led the attack, the whole tenor of whose life was marked by manliness of purpose and integrity of view, most unequivocally deny that any such promise (of plunder) was ever held out to the army, or that the watchword asserted to have been given out was ever issued. And, further, that such motives could never have actuated the man who, in the discharge of his duty to his king and country, so eminently upheld the character of a true British soldier.{{sfnp|Stuart|1834|pp=102–104}}}}

James Stuart's account was criticised by a veteran, Major Norman Pringle, who wrote several letters to the Edinburgh Evening Courant. In response, Stuart published a book to refute these criticisms.{{sfnp|Stuart|1834|pp=3–5}} He quoted Major Eaton as a reliable source, and later went on to comment that as a result of Stuart, it had become accepted the watchword was a falsehood.{{NoteTag|"Six extracts [taken in October 1833 from: New York journal of Commerce, New York Gazette and General Advertiser, Philadelphia Commercial Herald, New York Commercial Advertiser, New York American, New York Albion]..the Watchword... had been universally believed in the United States of America for eighteen years; and also shewing the good spirit with which the complete refutation of the statement had been received in America."{{sfnp|Stuart|1834|pp=106–108}}}} One quote from the book "certainly the refutation of the charge as stated in Major Eaton's Book is, though tardy, complete"{{sfnp|Stuart|1834|pp=107–108}} considered the matter closed. Notwithstanding the refutation, the story had benefited both Jackson and Eaton's political careers, who had nothing left to prove.{{sfnp|Eustace|2012|p=230}}

The publication of Eaton's book in Britain in 1834, and in subsequent editions, still contained the story of "booty and beauty". The British Ambassador, Sir [[Charles Richard Vaughan]] wrote to President Jackson about the matter. Vaughan wrote that Eaton 'expressed himself glad, that the report was at last contradicted' by the rebuttal, but there was no pressure on him to retract his comments from the Jackson biography.{{sfnp|LOC, ''Sir Charles B. Vaughan to Andrew Jackson''|2021}} There is no recounting in 1833 of Jackson's supposed encounter with the mystery Creole planter (Denis de la Ronde), as reported by S C Arthur (see below).

Arthur's 1915 publication, quoting from Parton's 1861 biography of Jackson, itself quoting extensively from Vincent Nolte's book published in 1854, has referred to a [[Louisiana Creole people|Creole]] planter reportedly visited a British military camp a few days prior to the battle, being welcomed in after claiming that he was supportive of a possible British takeover of the region. While dining at dinner with a group of British officers, the planter claimed he heard one officer offer the [[Toast (honor)|toast]] of "Beauty and Booty". After gathering information on Pakenham's battle plans, the planter left the camp the next day and reported the information he had gathered to Jackson; the rumor that the British were offering toasts to "Beauty and Booty" soon spread throughout New Orleans, in particular among the upper-class women of the city.{{sfnp|Arthur|1915|p=216}} Nolte's book reveals the 'planter' to be no other than Denis de la Ronde,{{sfnp|Nolte|1934|p=220}} the colonel commanding the Third Regiment of the Louisiana Militia.{{sfnp|Read the Plaque, ''Denis de La Ronde Site''|2023}}

In the years since the Treaty of Ghent, not only did Jackson's reputation benefit from his major victory against the British, but also from vilifying the British as an amoral foe, against whom a second war of independence had been fought. As a national hero, it facilitated his subsequent career in politics, and tenure as President of the United States.