Jackson's official report, as well as that of Commodore Daniel Patterson, blamed the retreat of the Kentuckians for the collapse of the forces on the west bank.[1] Many Kentuckians also felt that Jackson's report downplayed the importance of the Kentuckians on the east bank (those under Adair) in preserving the American line and securing the victory.[2] Davis' men insisted that Jackson's report was based upon his misunderstanding of the facts and asked Adair to request investigation by a court of inquiry.[3]
The court convened in February 1815 with Major General Carroll of Tennessee presiding.[4] The court's report found that "[t]he retreat of the Kentucky militia, which, considering their position, the deficiency of their arms, and other causes, may be excusable."[3] The court found that the formation of the troops on the west bank was "exceptional", noting that 500 Louisiana troops supported by three artillery pieces and protected by a strong breastwork were charged with defending a line that stretched only 200 yards (180 m) while Davis' 170 Kentuckians, poorly armed and protected only by a small ditch, were expected to defend a line over 300 yards (270 m) long.[5] On February 10, 1816, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a resolution thanking Adair for his service at the Battle of New Orleans and for his defense of the soldiers accused by Jackson.[6]
The court's report was not the full refutation of Jackson's report that many Kentuckians – including Adair – had wanted, but it provided official vindication for Davis' militiamen.[4] Jackson approved the court's report, but Adair – formerly one of Jackson's close friends – wrote a letter insisting that Jackson should withdraw or modify his official report.[4][7] The letter was quickly made public.[4] In a polite but terse reply, Jackson refused to do so.[4]
Jackson's reply might have ended the matter, but in June 1815, H.P. Helm, the secretary to John Thomas, wrote to a Frankfort newspaper that he had been instructed to forward remarks from "the general" that had been annexed to the official report of the battle.[8] The remarks stated that the general was now convinced that the initial reports of cowardice by Davis' men "had been misrepresented" and that their retreat had been "not only excusable, but absolutely justifiable".[8] These remarks were reprinted in newspapers across Kentucky and brought satisfaction at last to the people of the state.[8] Further, given the timing of the remarks, Adair's letter of protest was credited as Jackson's impetus for writing them.[8] It was not until after the widespread dissemination of the remarks that Helm discovered that the remarks had been attributed to Jackson; "the general" referenced had actually been General John Thomas.[8] Jackson had never even seen the remarks.[8] Helm later claimed he sent a clarification to the newspaper that had originally published the remarks, but a correction never appeared in the paper.[8]
A loosely-related series of events led to Jackson's discovery of the remarks that were being attributed to him. In January 1817, a dinner was held in honor of one of the commanders in the Chesapeake Campaign.[9] During the dinner, the commander remarked that, if he had been commanding 2,000 Kentuckians instead of 7,000 Marylanders, the British would never have burned Washington, D.C.[9] These comments were lauded throughout Kentucky, but a Boston newspaper reminded offended New Englanders that Jackson had actually commanded Kentucky militiamen at New Orleans and had a decidedly different opinion of them.[9] Incensed Kentucky newspapers published numerous documents in reply to the Boston paper, including the remarks being attributed to Jackson.[9] This was apparently the first time Jackson had seen the remarks, and he angrily wrote to the Kentucky Reporter, denouncing the remarks as a forgery.[8] The Reporter subsequently investigated and published an explanation of how Thomas' remarks had been mistakenly attributed to Jackson.[8] They did not, however, reprint Jackson's letter because they felt his claim that the remarks had been intentionally forged – a charge which was now found to be false – were too inflammatory.[9]
In a private letter to Jackson, the editors of the Reporter promised that if their retraction did not satisfy him, they would publish any of his additional remarks on the subject in full.[9] Jackson availed himself of this offer, writing an extensive letter in which he implied that Adair had masterminded a conspiracy to misrepresent Thomas' remarks as Jackson's and cover up the cowardice of Davis' men.[10] In the letter, published in April 1817, Jackson re-asserted that the remarks mistakenly attributed to him had been intentionally forged – possibly by Adair himself – not merely misunderstood.[11] He referred to the remarks as a "forged dish, dressed in the true Spanish style"; Adair regarded this as a thinly-veiled reference to Adair's alleged participation in the schemes of Aaron Burr.[12] Quoting from Kentuckian Robert B. McAfee's History of the Late War in the Western Country, Jackson charged that Adair had concocted the scheme to bolster his reputation as the "hero of truth, and defender of the Kentucky reputation".[11] As proof that he was not predisposed against Kentuckians in general, Jackson implied that he had not reported on additional dishonorable behavior by Kentucky militiamen at the Battle of New Orleans.[13] Finally, Jackson commented on the findings of the court of inquiry, saying that their lukewarm excuse of the Kentuckians' retreat was made to avoid dampening the general jubilation over the victory, but the half-hearted exoneration actually proved that his assessment of the Kentuckians' behavior was true.[13]
Jackson's letter thrust the dispute, which had previously been of only regional interest, into the national spotlight, and interested parties from all over the country penned editorials in defense of one side or the other.[14] Accusations against Adair prompted him to resume correspondence with Jackson, now not only defending Davis' men against Jackson's charges of cowardice, but himself against Jackson's charges of conspiracy.[15] Adair's response came from Natchez, Mississippi, in May 1817.[12] He re-asserted his defense of the Kentucky militiamen that participated in the Battle of New Orleans and chastised Jackson for making charges of forgery and conspiracy against him personally with no evidence to prove such accusations.[12] He flatly denied that any such conspiracy existed.[16] In response to Jackson's allusion to the Burr affair, Adair recalled in his letter that Jackson, too, had been implicated in the scheme.[16] He briefly dismissed many of Jackson's allegations as unimportant and untrue.[16]
Jackson was negotiating a treaty with the Cherokee when Adair's response was printed; consequently, his reply did not appear in print until September 3, 1817.[16] Still unable to produce any tangible evidence that Adair had engineered a conspiracy to salvage the Kentucky troops' reputation and enhance his own at Jackson's expense, Jackson nevertheless attempted to provide indirect evidence that such a conspiracy was possible.[17] He condemned some of the evidence presented in the court of inquiry as being false and cited this as the beginning of Adair's alleged conspiracy.[18] Using complicated calculations based on spacing and distance, he also argued that Adair had only half the number of men he claimed to have commanded at the Battle of New Orleans.[18] Further, he claimed that Adair had ordered Davis to New Orleans to obtain weapons knowing that the arms had already been taken by other brigades under Adair's command.[19] Either Adair had given a foolish order, Jackson maintained, or he did not have as many men in his main force as he initially claimed.[19] Finally, he said that he once held Adair in high regard, but that his respect for him had evaporated when he read Adair's first letter asking for a retraction or modification of Jackson's official report.[19] He promised that this letter would be the last he would compose on the matter.[20]
Adair's final letter in the exchange was published October 29, 1817, the lateness of his reply being occasioned, he said, because he was awaiting documents from New Orleans.[20] Although the documents never arrived, he still felt he had sufficient evidence to reply.[20] Quoting from a letter to Jackson's aide-de-camp – a letter cited by Jackson himself in previous correspondence – Adair showed that Jackson had been made aware of Thomas' remarks in 1815, had been informed at that time that they were written by Thomas' secretary, and was given the opportunity to refute them, which he did not.[21] In light of this evidence, it seemed strange that Jackson should now charge that the remarks had been forged.[21] He also defended his own account of the number of troops at his disposal at the battle, asking why Jackson had not challenged his numbers before now, since he had consistently reported the number of troops as being near 1,000 from the beginning of the affair.[21] He also claimed that he retrieved the weapons from New Orleans under Jackson's orders and rode Jackson's own horse to New Orleans to effect the transaction.[22] Finally, he pointed out that Jackson had largely demurred on whether or not he had intended his "Spanish dish" remark as a dig at Adair's alleged involvement in the Burr affair, but reminded his readers that Jackson's involvement with Burr had been more extensive than his own.[23]
Tradition holds that this final exchange between Adair and Jackson prompted one of them to challenge the other to a duel and that friends of both men averted the conflict after assembling to watch.[23] Historian Zachariah Frederick Smith gives a detailed account of this tradition that he claims was told to him by a descendant of Adair's cousin.[24] No written evidence of the events exists.[23] Tensions between the two men eventually eased.[25] Adair came to comfort Jackson after the death of his wife, Rachel in 1828.[25] Adair also campaigned on Jackson's behalf during his bids for the presidency in 1824, 1828, and 1832.[25] Jackson's opponents, however, compiled copies of his letters into campaign pamphlets to use against him in Kentucky during these same elections.[26]
References
edit- ^ Smith, p. 106
- ^ Gillig, p. 179
- ^ a b Smith, p. 109
- ^ a b c d e Gillig, p. 184
- ^ Smith, p. 110
- ^ Young, p. 126
- ^ Smith, pp. 111–112
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Gillig, p. 185
- ^ a b c d e f Gillig, p. 186
- ^ Gillig, p. 187
- ^ a b Gillig, p. 188
- ^ a b c Gillig, p. 191
- ^ a b Gillig, p. 189
- ^ Gillig, p. 190
- ^ Powell, p. 26
- ^ a b c d Gillig, p. 192
- ^ Gillig, pp. 192–193
- ^ a b Gillig, p. 193
- ^ a b c Gillig, p. 194
- ^ a b c Gillig, p. 195
- ^ a b c Gillig, p. 196
- ^ Gillig, p. 197
- ^ a b c Gillig, p. 199
- ^ Smith, pp. 113–114
- ^ a b c Gillig, p. 201
- ^ Gillig, p. 180
Bibliography
edit- Gillig, John S. (April 1984). "In the Pursuit of Truth and Honor: The Controversy Between Andrew Jackson and John Adair in 1817". Filson Club History Quarterly. 58 (2).
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - Powell, Robert A. (1976). Kentucky Governors. Danville, Kentucky: Bluegrass Printing Company. ASIN B0006CPOVM. OCLC 2690774.
- Smith, Zachary F. (1904). 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. Louisville, Kentucky: John P. Morton & Company. OCLC 1730001.
- Young, Bennett Henderson (1903). The battle of the Thames, in which Kentuckians defeated the British, French, and Indians, October 5, 1813, with a list of the officers and privates who won the victory. Louisville, Kentucky: J. P. Morton. OCLC 2617867. Retrieved 2008-12-12.