Talk:Augustus Caesar Buell

Lede, tone

This edit seems obviously unproductive to me. Rather than argue about it in edit summaries, I'm bringing it here for David Trochos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to explain what exactly in it renders sentences "unintelligible" before I restore a version which I believe contains significant improvements in both tone and focus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just proofread your edit. David Trochos (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the run-on sentence caused by the removal of the phrase "Buell... was not to be trusted", then you could (and should) have fixed that yourself. I'll correct that when I'm reinstating my edit. Next time, try operating in the spirit of collaboration by attempting to fix mistakes yourself rather than simply passing commentary on them and expecting others to figure you out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augustus Caesar Buell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304101129/http://hsp.org/sites/default/files/legacy_files/docs/pmhb_article_0.pdf to http://hsp.org/sites/default/files/legacy_files/docs/pmhb_article_0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson quote

'alleged to be plagiarised or made up.'

I have come across a Jackson quote from him that seems nigh impossible to prove as being genuine. His biography of Jackson contains a fake British order of battle and a fake British Army casualty report. Keith H99 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In his biography of Jackson, the author Augustus Caesar Buell recounted a meeting in 1875 with Governor Allen. In 1836 Ohio politician William Allen asked Jackson whether there was a point to the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson, unaware of the peace policy of the British government in 1815, speculated that if General Pakenham had won the British would have 'claimed and held the whole Louisiana Purchase,' on the basis of denying that Napoleon had the legal right to sell Louisiana. Therefore, the Treaty of Ghent regarding the restoration of this property taken, did not apply to the Louisiana Purchase.

Augustus C. Buell, History of Andrew Jackson, pioneer, patriot, soldier, politician, president (1904) pp. 75-77. online

It is of interest that there is nothing whatsoever from this person that appears in the Andrew Jackson wiki article, which is rated as a Featured Article, and therefore does not contain facts from non-RS. Keith H99 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The relative forces engaged have already been set forth in these pages: The British strength from reports on file in the Adjutant-General's office of Great Britain,

and the American force from General Eaton's memorandum compiled from reports of Company Commanders, the 9th of January.

'Had he simply introduced false stories without citing any source document, there would have been less of a problem, but he went one step further, and invented entire letters and journals, from which he published extracts in the book.' Buell and his notorious biography of John Paul Jones.

A lot of secondary sources do naively use these orders of battle, and they look plausible. I do not believe that corresponding information has appeared in primary sources. For the British, the primary source info, of known provenance, contradicts Buell's information. Three regiments of the British Army were not at New Orleans: Twenty-seventh Foot, Forty-first Foot, Eighty-ninth (Dublin) Foot

Scary that 120 year old deep fakes are perpetrated. Keith H99 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)