Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans: The Battle That Shaped Americas Destiny by Brian Kilmeade

Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans: The Battle That Shaped Americas Destiny Reviews

• 
  L.A. Starks

  Although history gives theoretical (and civic) context when one is young, it can be far more interesting and perhaps should be reserved for those no longer in school, or at least those of us with some longer context of living, aka "lived experience."
  
  While I appreciate that rough-hewn, backwoods Andrew Jackson is considered to have a mixed legacy, this book is well worth reading for its explanation of the Battle of New Orleans, the key turning point in the lesser-known, but vital, conflict in American history--the War of 1812. (Or as the Canadians call it, the War of Southern Aggression, since leaders less astute than Jackson started off by trying to invade Canada.)
  
  Kilmeade and Yaeger have done a superb job of explaining, with maps and descriptions of strategy, just how Andrew Jackson, suffering from dysentery and the effects of a bullet lodged near his lung, led his multi-ethnic troops from Tennessee woodsmen to Creoles to freedmen to pirates in beating back the British just a few miles from New Orleans.
  
  The British had been victorious over Napoleon and so were considered the best fighting force in the world. They aimed their might at Louisiana's vital nexus. Jackson and his Americans saved for the just-formed United States not just a important gateway (think of New York City today), but the entire Louisiana Purchase-- half the nation's new land area--in key battles during a few short days in the winter of 1814-1815.
  
  Highly accessible, Kilmeade-Yaeger's book differs from most history tomes because it's so usefully focused.
• 
  Scott

  I bought this book at an airport to read on a plane. This is very much an airport book. It's entertaining, and it was fun to learn more about the battle of New Orleans, but Jackson is a complicated character, and this portrayal crosses the line from "sympathetic" into "fawning," and "borderline inaccurate, historical revisionism." I know those are harsh words, but this book glosses over A LOT. I should have been more suspicious when Brad f-ing Thor was one of the jacket authors praising this. Anyway, if you want to read a good book about this general period that touches on Jackson, read the Henry Clay biography.
  
  *edit, since I didn’t realize this review had so many comments, and apparently I was unclear: I realize that this isn’t a biography, and my criticisms don’t have anything to do with Jackson’s personal life, or what he did later in his career. My criticisms have to do with the overall tone of the book, and portrayals of events that happened during this time that are relevant to the story. I still stand by the word “fawning.“ Some of the arguably bad, or at least questionable things he did during this campaign are either omitted, or portrayed in a really, really favorable light. That’s what I take issue with. It’s a fun book, and I learned a lot about this campaign, and it’s importance. I just wish it was a little more balanced.
• 
  Renae

  This book should not be considered 'non-fiction; rather it should be placed with the personal essay collection and titled "AndRew JackSON is the BESTEST president ever". I have no idea how a non-fiction historical book gets written and published without one single reference to a primary source but somehow this nonsense did. The quality (lack thereof) of historical fact checking and reference wouldn't even pass a high school history class.
  
  At best this was a cute story from a personal opinion stand point. At worst, and it was mostly at its worst, it glossed over a lot of facts while substituted personal opinion. The endorsements by Brad Thor and Brad Meltzer should have been a giant red flag.
• 
  Clint Smith

  A well researched, detail-oriented account of one of the most pivotal periods in America history. Unfortunately, most citizens have very little knowledge of this topic. I recommend it to everyone with an interest in America's past, present, and future.
• 
  Celia

  Another excellent narrative non-fiction. I not only read but listened to the voice of Brian Kilmeade, the author. He is a radio talk show host on Fox. His reading expertise shows.
  
  I know that many people do not value or like Andrew Jackson. I understand why because his stance on Indian rights was abominable. However, I do begrudgingly admire him for his courage, his courtly manner and his love for his wife, Rachel.
  
  The Volunteers from TN were greatly outnumbered in the Battle of New Orleans. But Jackson out-generaled his British opponent. With no formal battle strategy training, he was still able to win.
  
  This is the second book I have read about Jackson, the other being American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, by Jon Meacham.
  
  Jackson was a very interesting man and reading both these books furthered my knowledge of him
  
  4 stars.
• 
  Matthew Haddick

  I got this book for Christmas 2017 and read it in three days.
  
  I wasn't sure exactly what to expect from it. I'd heard Kilmeade promote it and seen it advertised on the web, but I'd never read a Kilmeade book before. I didn't know if it would be a history book or in some way a self-promotion for Kilmeade, a morning news show anchor.
  
  Well, I was surprised. It was stunningly good. It is definitely a history book, but it has a story-telling aspect to it that's difficult to find in most books of this genre. "Riveting" is a good way to put it - it has the details and sources of a historical narrative, but it also contains a "can't-put-it-down" nature that's very rare in history.
  
  The Battle of New Orleans is one of the most important in American history. It guaranteed the fast and unimpeded expansion of the United States into the West. Had this battle been won by the British, our nation would look very different - not only on a map, but also in our culture.
  
  As such, it is surprising even to me how little I knew of this battle going into the book. I'd consider myself a card-carrying American history nerd, but of this battle I must admit I knew virtually nothing. All I knew was Andrew Jackson defeated a superior British force at New Orleans, after the peace treaty had already been signed.
  
  There was so much more to the story. Jackson's force wasn't just outnumbered - it was cobbled together from all nationalities and backgrounds, forming a melting pot of an army. They were inexperienced and ill-equipped to deal with the British force that included several thousand more experience and better equipped regulars.
  
  Not to mention Jackson had very little experience as a general, and was going up against Edward Pakenham, a veteran of the Peninsular War, and Admiral Alexander Cochrane, who had landed the force that had sacked and burned Washington, D.C.
  
  Yet somehow Jackson pulled it off.
  
  Now, Kilmeade's portrait is unnecessarily positive of Jackson. He never said a bad thing about Jackson's character in the entire book. That's not a necessarily bad thing, but he did leave out some of Jackson's negative traits while listing the positive ones.
  
  But that does little to dim the excellency of Kilmeade's work. It's definitely worth a read. It's short - only about 230 pages, and without particularly small print or tight spacing. You could read this in a week.
  
  I'm excited to see more from Kilmeade. I will definitely read more of his work.
• 
  Jeanette

  This is a breezy book which follows the life of Andrew Jackson. From his earliest orphan and schooling experiences, it follows the years of his 20's quite quickly. As being from Nashville, TN Jackson is always looked upon as the backwoods "outsider" in the systems which saw Eastern coast city men heading each and every aspect of the government and the military. So much so that the "west" as it was then in identity, was not a central onus for purpose.
  
  It follows all the linear in time progression events following the Louisiana Purchase which had Andrew Jackson at core positions. And especially those of battle occurring after the first 1812 recruitment episodes. More than one. He was instrumental in raising a force to combat Indian/British allied forces in the "west". There are several battles highlighted in detail before the New Orleans success in 1814.
  
  It's written with jumps, IMHO. But the graphics, photos and other detailed accounts of those later years (and especially the physical injuries)- are excellent.
  
  But this does not give immense motivation copy or theory. To me that is a excellent quality. But I find others want interpretation of minutia far more to their particular slant of onus upon much later history or "eyes" of politico.
  
  This does give you a credible feel for the man, and how he was far more fair minded than given any credit for being. Detail upon mercy for prisoners and survivors, or to the surrendering chief and many other personal fellow soldier outcomes are detailed.
  
  But this is NOT done in the manner of psychological erudite analysis to give you any great insight to how he thought about himself or his own core cognition, IMHO. He hated the British for personal reasons and he had immense tragedy in his first 30 years. But you do understand why he he wanted a completely independent nation to be the MOST directed AWAY from Great Britain's influence. Even unto trade or any criteria that cut into the USA sovereign self dictates of choices. And how that Gulf Coast and Mississippi water way entry was so important to insure that it happened and what intense planning he contrived to fight there to win.
  
  Tough. Old Hickory indeed! It was no sure thing by any means. It changed the entire direction of the continental government as a "whole" growing identity and for practical applications. Both!
  
  
• 
  Rob

  We were lucky to win the War of 1812. We had lost control of the war in the north, losing battles in Canada. Then British troops set the White House on fire. If the British conquered New Orleans, they would control the mouth of the Mississippi River, cutting America off from its dream of western expansion, let alone forever changing Mardi Gras as we know it. In steps Andrew Jackson in the well-known refrain: “In 1814 we took a little trip, . . .” It’s not David McCullough, but read it for the important American history which most of us never learned.
• 
  Wes Knapp

  I love American history and this book opened my eyes to aspects of the War of 1812 that I had only briefly studied. This is a must read for those interested in the history of New Orleans. I was surprised to read of Sam Houston and Davy Crockett 's involvement in Old Hickory's army.
  From Jean Lafitte to the Ursuline nuns to the multicultural mix of New Orlean's own citizens - all have a part in this story. Don't miss it!
• 
  Shirley (stampartiste)

  As a south Louisianan, I'm ashamed to admit that I never knew - until I read this book - the significance the Battle of New Orleans played in American history. If Jackson and his varied collection of mostly amateur freedom fighters had lost this battle to the mighty military force of Great Britain, the United States could very well have extended only to the Mississippi River (if that). It was a fascinating story told with great detail and helpful illustrations. This book made me "see" the battle. It was pretty awesome. And it reinforces the idea that anything is possible.
  
  Andrew Jackson was a brilliant strategist and motivator. Regardless of his other faults (and I haven't read enough about him, his actions and underlying motivations, nor whether he shaped Manifest Destiny or this doctrine of the time shaped him, to judge him fairly), Jackson was a man of strong convictions and was willing to sacrifice his life for them. He may have become a two-term president, but he was definitely not a typical politician. This book makes me want to read more about it. He was quite a complex individual.
• 
  Jason Pettus

  Here's what I learned by reading Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans, by Fox News talking head Brian Kilmeade and "ghostwritten" (i.e. actually written) by Don Yaeger:
  
  --That Andrew Jackson's "miracle victory" during the War of 1812 was basically to stay alive over the course of two weeks, when his non-trained militia of mostly volunteers faced off against a British force ten times its size, fresh off their victory in the Napoleonic Wars;
  
  --That this battle took place two weeks after Britain and America had actually declared a formal truce back in London, but before news about it had gotten back to the US, making it pretty much pointless in the first place (despite Kilmeade's dubious insistence that maybe Great Britain might possibly had made a case that if they had technically overrun New Orleans before the treaty was signed, and that a weary British public already fatigued by the Napoleonic Wars had somehow by magic gotten in a super-patriotic mood in a single month, then perhaps Britain would've spent the massive resources it would've required to leave a permanent garrison there);
  
  --That the entire reason the war took place in the first place was as petty third-party revenge over America's support of France during the Napoleonic Wars, a minor blip in history whose sole aim was to cause some final financial damage to the US as Britain was permanently on its way out from America for good;
  
  --That the only reason we even remember it taking place anymore is because war-happy conservatives used it as an excuse to whip up nationalist fervor in an attempt to humiliate their liberal opponents in Congress, recasting the embarrassingly overwhelming minor battles as "The Second Revolutionary War" (for example, declaring a cheesy poem written during this skirmish our new National Anthem), and using the flag-draping rah-rahism of it all to permanently disband Alexander Hamilton's Federalist party, who had been against the war from the start;
  
  --And that when a fascist talking head from Fox News writes a history book about Andrew Jackson, he uses each and every opportunity humanly possible to remind us, in badly written subjective prose, how Jackson was a real American because of coming from the rural countryside, and how all his miracle victories were achieved despite the pansy nonsense of those useless northern liberal Yankee f*ggots.
  
  Bluergh. If you want an objective, scholarly look at the War of 1812, read its Wikipedia page, and skip this ridiculous Trumpist propaganda altogether.
• 
  John Nevola

  Andrew Jackson and the Miracle at New Orleans
  When most Americans think about the battle of New Orleans, they envision a day long battle in which the hapless British threw themselves against a wall of well-entrenched Americans and suffered an ignominious defeat. There was a battle on January 8, 1815 that conforms to this perception but it was the culmination of a series of skirmishes that led up to that fateful (for the British) day.
  In fact, the struggle to keep New Orleans from British hands took the better part of two weeks. This does not include smaller battles for Pensacola and Mobile Bay that preceded the siege of the Crescent City.
  At the center of all this activity was General Andrew Jackson who commanded a mixed bag of American regulars, militiamen, volunteers and pirates. It was his job to keep New Orleans (and the Mississippi River) in American hands lest the British seize control of the western United States; a prospect that would prevent the western expansion of the young nation.
  How Jackson pulled this remarkable feat off against the best infantry in the world (they had just defeated Napoleon) is the crux of the Miracle of New Orleans. Written in a simple and engaging style, the book portrays the facts of the battle and withholds judgement of the participants. It makes a compelling case that the outcome of this battle was as important to the United States as the victory at Yorktown.
  Highly recommended to anyone interested in the history of the United States and the War of 1812.
  
  John E. Nevola - Author of The Last Jump
  US Army Veteran
  Military Writer's Society of America
  
• 
  SoulSurvivor

  I've loved , loved history since elementary school . I attended grades 1-4 in California , and it was all about California . Rural Pennsylvania was all about America , and university was the world . I knew some stuff about the War of 1812 : the burning of the white house & capital , Madison's war , The Treaty of Ghent and the battle of New Orleans (all superficially) . This volume was very easy to read and enjoy , and filled in all the gaps , especially about Andrew Jackson's crucial role in securing the Mississippi , the South and New Orleans .
  
  OK , this isn't college level ( uh , maybe it is today ) but it provides an excellent framework from which to build on if interested . I think someone in their late teens would especially benefit from it , especially if they lived in California .
• 
  Scott Hitchcock

  3.5*'s
  
  Entertaining account of the events. It's funny how much you forget from your school days about important historical events such as these.
• 
  Scott Rhee

  Before Andrew Jackson became President of the United States of America in 1928, before he founded the Democratic Party, and before he became the architect of the infamous Trail of Tears, Jackson was a Major General in the Tennessee militia during America’s first real test of strength, the War of 1812.
  
  Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger, in their third installment of what I facetiously call the FOX News American Historical Revisionist Triptych, “Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans”, have once again written an entertaining story based on an actual historical event that many Americans may not know much about.
  
  In all seriousness, I enjoyed Kilmeade/Yaeger’s latest book, as I have enjoyed all of their previous ones. At the very least, their books are good starting points for doing more reading about and study of American history, something which I greatly support.
  
  The facts of the Battle of New Orleans are as follows: While most historians focus on the major skirmishes in the Atlantic between British and American naval forces during the War of 1812, the strategic importance of New Orleans, Louisiana was often downplayed. As a major port city, many Americans---including President James Madison---believed that New Orleans was a key point in winning or losing the war. If Britain were to capture the city, the British could use the city as a barrier to prevent further westward expansion.
  
  General Jackson, under the command of President Madison, was ordered to defend the city. This was no easy task, as the city was a diverse melting pot of freed slaves, French colonials, fur traders, and Caribbean pirates, many of whom were not sure that they wanted to be a part of the U.S.
  
  Former President Thomas Jefferson had overseen the Louisiana Purchase, and Louisiana had become a state officially in April 1812. The Battle of New Orleans would take place roughly three years later, on January 8, 1815.
  
  How did a rough-and-tumble orphan from Tennessee win over the diverse populace of New Orleans? And how did an untested rag-tag force that was outnumbered nearly two to one defeat one of the strongest military forces in the world at the time? Therein lies the crux of the story, and I won’t provide any spoilers, because there is definitely fun to be had in the reading of it.
  
  Perhaps that is the reason why I have enjoyed Kilmeade/Yaeger’s books. Despite their political leanings and obvious attempts to force current political themes onto history, Kilmeade and Yaeger are evidently history buffs. They love writing about it, and they are clearly having fun doing so. Not that history has to be, or should be, fun, per se. Still, a reader can tell when a writer absolutely loves their subject matter. It’s infectious.
  
  That said, Jackson was still kind of an asshole, and any attempt at glorifying the guy who set about what amounted to an attempted genocide of the entire Native American population strikes me as being disingenuous, at the least.
  Still, I expect a movie to be made about the Battle of New Orleans soon. I’m sure Clint Eastwood is thinking about directing and starring in it right now. And, frankly, that would be fucking cool as hell.
• 
  David

  I'm gonna give this one four stars. Before we go into why this one gets four and other more "scholarly" works suffered the fates of threes and twos in my reviews, let me address some criticisms leveled at the book.
  Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger have the writing credits on this book, and have written a few others, presumably with the same narrative style; George Washington and Jefferson's clash with the pirates at Tripoli are but two of them. Kilmeade probably didn't write them; Yaeger is the writer and "scholar." So what? Other books were flat-out ghost written and the titled "author gets the kudos, and don't suffer near this resistance. My guess is that Kilmeade is a right-of-center commentator and therefore is disqualified from having an opinion or lending his name to a lesser-known colleague to sell some books, and that is the basis for some of the criticism. Fine, but I know who you are and your "one-star" reviews mean nothing to me. I see through you.
  Another criticism is that the book does not rely enough on primary sources and takes a road less traveled by using a lot of reputable secondary sources. A fair point, but again I ask: who cares? Many of us, if we read a non-fiction book, come away with a richer or deeper understanding of them topic or event we read about. Sometimes, the facts in those books are used by us to bolster an opinion or support an assertion.We become a "secondary source." Does that disqualify us as a source of information? Maybe if we editorialize about those facts and bend them, but otherwise that information is fair game.
  So, moving onto my defense of the four star ruling: it reads like one of my history lessons in class. I use an amalgamation of primary and secondary source documents (written and visual) and I report on historical events using those sources (including many textbooks that are really not worth the cost of binding them). I have even used a few tertiary (GASP!!! Clutching pearls now) sources in my lectures. It does not necessarily diminish the value of the information, because in many cases those sources can also be corroborated and verified.
  Take this book as it is intended: a survey of an important event, people, and places in American History as told by two guys over St. Patrick's Day festivities and we got to eavesdrop a little, and came away a little better informed and a lot more entertained.
• 
  Fred Forbes

  My 5th great uncle was a murderer. Also Thomas Jefferson's nephew. He and his brother killed a slave named George for dropping a plate. Rather than face trial, the two decided to commit suicide in the family plot in Western Kentucky. While one of them, Lilburne Lewis used a stick to demonstrate how to kill oneself should the flintlock malfunction after they attempted to shoot each other the gun accidentally discharged killing him. The "survivor", Isham Lewis was arrested but managed to escape the Salem KY jail. The initial version I read indicated that he took off for New Orleans was swept up in the defense of the city and died in the Battle of New Orleans under an assumed name. Silly me, I tried to find him in the record of the deaths but quickly realized that it would be difficult if I did not know his assumed name. The U.S. dead numbered about 300 versus 10 times that many for the British.
  
  At any rate, that background is what sparked my interest in what actually happened so I picked up a copy of this book due to the good reviews and found it to be engaging. An excellent and concise and well written work that I can certainly recommend to anyone with a interest in American history. One thing I did not realize was the "melting pot" nature of the American defenders. Blacks, Indians, Whites, Creoles and Pirates joined forces to prevent Britain from taking over the city. The Brits were certainly surprised at the result since earlier in the war the taking of Washington DC and the burning of the White House were a cake walk.
  
  Interesting behind the scenes look at the diplomatic process going on in Ghent while the battle took place, the problem of slow communications and the reason the Brits insisted on specific language be included in the treaty. Nah, no spoiler, enjoy the book.
  
  By the way, just uncovered new info that Isham Lewis fought in the battle and was buried on the battlefield, supposedly under his own name. Interesting that he does not appear in the material compiled by the National Park Service and the University of New Orleans. The whole story is outlined in the court records of Ohio regarding the successful lawsuit of his widow for his back pay and pension. Looks like I'll have to dig a bit deeper!
• 
  Richard Fournet

  ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️5/5
  This book should be required reading for all students!
  
  Especially Louisiana students!
  
  All of the residents of New Orleans, this is a book that should be in your library!
  
  You can thank me later 😇
• 
  Art

  This is a very readable history book and a surprisingly wonderful quick read.
  
  There is nothing dry about this story of Andrew Jackson and his successful defense of New Orleans against vastly superior British forces in the War of 1812.
  
  Jackson is a populist president who earned his following while saving his country and its future by winning the battle at a time when the country had no experienced generals and was lacking leadership.
  
  At risk is the control of the Mississippi River, which would prevent the country from expanding westward, and the future of the emerging nation.
  
  Jackson is an amazing character. As a child, he was wounded by British soldiers and left without a family during the Revolutionary War. He falls in love with his beloved Rachel, settles in Tennessee and leads the likes of Sam Houston and Davy Crockett in a successful war with William Wetherford's Red Stick Creek Indians.
  
  So when Britain again attacks the US, leaving its Capital and the White House in ashes, Jackson and his Tennessee Volunteers are called on to defend the nation.
  
  I can't say enough about how good this book is, how readable the history and how amazing the story. I'm going to have to go back and read the authors' earlier effort.
• 
  John Brissette

  Very well done history
  
  As a New Orleanian, the very home I have today is due to this polarizing, difficult, driven man. This history of Maj Gen Jackson & the Battle of New Orleans reads well. More like a story or novel than a history book I found it to be an engaging page turner that was over before I knew it. I loved it. Now not everyone gets to read it looking out a window that looks down onto the plains of Chalmette just downriver from my home here, but it is so well written you might think you do. Great job.
• 
  Joe Ricca

  A jaunty telling of the War of 1812, and the exceptional battlefield tactics of Andrew Jackson. Though after reading you will be asking yourself if it wasn't for the over confident and greedy British Generals, would the United States look different today. Possibly, and the Native Americans (I hope that's what they are going by today) may have fared better as well.
  
  Greed, it's still whats for dinner. Just don't choke on your just deserts.
• 
  RITA BOTTILLO

  Wonderful read
  
  This should be read to our schoolchildren when studying the war of 1812 . This is well written telling of our history that takes the reader the battle as it unfolds. It is instructing, and entertaining. It captures the spirit of the establishment of our republic. A mustread
• 
  Clay Davis

  The best book to read on the date of the Battle of New Orleans.
• 
  Rick

  This was an excellent book about Jackson. It is based solely on the Battle of New Orleans which is one of the best accounts of the battle and how it developed. The celebrations of the victory were detailed. In an afterword, there was a brief overview of Jackson and a bit of the controversy surrounding the man. Overall, I highly recommend this book!
• 
  Jon

  This was a phenomenally fun read. It was interesting to see just how hard Andrew Jackson fought and how he overcame odds by using wit and strategy. It's pretty short, and told in a nice narrative way that engages a reader.
• 
  Chad Brady

  Very good look at the battle that made a president. As much of a draw as the war of 1812 was, the battle for New Orleans was a decisive victory for the Americans, and it is the battle that saved post 1812 America from a resurgent presence of the British in the americas! USA! USA! USA!!
• 
  Matthew Aravena

  Fun read that flew by, no point getting into the politics and picking a side of love or hate when it comes to Jackson. Simple and quick, loved it.