We Annexed Texas the Right Way

Davy Crockett

Yesterday was a Friday, and at The Libertarian Republic I posted a list of the top five libertarian war heroes. Even though the list format tends to promote facile generalizations, I am happy with the article I wrote, and so I want to share it here.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/top-5-libertarian-war-heroes/

Even though the biographies of the five men are short and superficial, using the list format enabled me to make the following point about the Neutrality Act and about how the annexation of Texas was done the right  way:

The United States was founded on the principle that residents of a geographic area should be allowed to decide for themselves how they want to be governed. It was also founded with the help of volunteers from elsewhere, like the Marquis de Lafayette, who fought in the American Revolution, just because he liked the ideas the Americans espoused. At the very start of the Republic, it was understood that any individual American could decide for himself what foreign wars he wanted to fight in and what Empire or regime he wanted to help topple, without asking for permission from the government of the United States. That's why American privateers fought on behalf of the French against Britain at a time when the United States was at peace with Britain. But wanting to put an end to this, in the Jay Treaty negotiations, Britain lobbied for the passage of the Neutrality Act, thereby putting an end to the legal pursuit of foreign policy by individual Americans for fun and profit. But this did not mean that Americans stopped trying. Aaron Burr was one example of somebody who wanted to help Hispanic colonists to liberate themselves from Spain. Long after Jefferson had ruined Burr, there were Mexican revolutionaries still writing the former Vice President letters asking for his help in their liberation from Spain. Jean Laffite, the smuggler and privateer, founded Galveston as a stronghold against Spain. But... just as they had done when he contributed to the defeat of the British in the Battle of New Orleans, the American government drove him away from Galveston so that they could give Texas to Spain on a silver platter under the terms of the Adams-Onis treaty. The United States did not drive Laffite out because they wanted Galveston for themselves. In fact, if it had been up to the American government, Texas would never have belonged to the U.S. But men like Davy Crockett and Sam Houston, when they got fed up with the corruption in Washington D.C. and opposed President Jackson's Indian Removal Act, went to help the Mexicans in Texas liberate themselves from what was now Mexico. They formed their own government, and the Republic of Texas eventually chose willingly to be annexed by the United States.

That's the story. And by looking at the biographies of the five men on my list in close succession, I think that you can see it is a single story with a unified plot line.  The theme of the story is individuals fighting against foreign governments, whether their own government allows it or not.

The Louisiana Purchase had been unconstitutional, precisely because entry into the Union was supposed to be voluntary. You were not supposed to be able to buy new territories and new constituents at the expense of the taxpayers. Jefferson was afraid that Burr was out to steal the territories that he bought, by turning the residents in those territories against the idea of eventually being annexed into the United States. This was completely untrue. Burr was going after fresh new territory south of the border. He was doing it at his own expense, without getting the United States into debt and without conscripting a single soldier.

But let's face it: Talking to the people living in American-held territories and suggesting that they might not want to be annexed would not have been treason. So even if Burr had been plotting what Jefferson thought he was plotting, it would not have been wrong.

Lots of people today do not know that Texas independence from Mexico was achieved through the rebellion of the people who lived in Texas against Mexico, including most Hispanic residents. It was not some Anglo-led plot to hurt Hispanics. It was the exact opposite of the policy being pursued by Andrew Jackson against the Cherokee nation. The government of the new Republic of Texas was inclusive.

If Davy Crockett and Sam Houston had obeyed the Neutrality Act, Texas would never have joined the Union at no cost to the taxpayers of the United States. The Neutrality Act should be repealed, so that Americans can continue to help others abroad when they choose, without involving the rest of us against our will.

But the other side of all this is that the idea of secession is something Jefferson was afraid of as early as his second term. A lot of Southerners don't know this. Once you start behaving like a Statist, buying and selling territories and the people in them, it makes you paranoid. Andrew Jackson's martial law during the Battle of New Orleans was something that happened because he did not really trust the people of Louisiana not to betray the United States to the British. He completely misunderstood them, lumping all "foreigners" together. He could not see how the French speaking population of the territory that had newly been annexed actually hated the British. But when you try to impose yourself on others, you also tend to think the worst of them.

The Neutrality Act did more harm than just destroying the individual careers of specific privateers. It put us on the slippery slope to the loss of all our civil liberties, because there in black and white in the body of the Statute the right of people to decide for themselves what government to support and which one to fight against was abridged. It undercuts the very reason for the American Revolution. It meant that we all came under the thumb of  foreign empires, if once our government negotiated a treaty with them. Thank goodness that real patriots like Sam Houston  never paid any attention to this law.

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of religion was something the Founding Fathers understood, but which was lost on second generation populists like Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a teenager during the revolution and even saw some action in the revolutionary war, but he did not have a good classical education like most of the founders, and so he was weak in his understanding of first amendment rights. Many Americans today also lack a classical education, and like Jackson, they think the government should push religion or require religious leaders to follow the government's agenda.

Andrew Jackson during the Revolutionary War
Brave Enough to Stand Up to the British,but Not Sure What He  Was Fighting For
Credit: Wikipedia

During the Martial Law imposed by General Jackson prior to the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson violated many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, including freedom of religion. According to the Journal of Jean Laffite, Jackson ordered an unwilling priest, Antonio de Sedella, to instruct his congregation to pray for an American victory. I retell this story in Theodosia and the Pirates.

Excerpt from Theodosia and the Pirates

Jackson's heart was in the right place, but his mind did not grasp how violating the first amendment would destroy the freedom that he had sworn to fight for. Jean Laffite, on the other hand, understood all too well. His grandparents had suffered at the hands of the Inquisition in Spain. His grandfather was killed under torture. His grandmother survived to tell the tale.

A dedication by Jean Laffite to his grandmother
"I owe all my ingenuity to the great intuition of my Spanish Jewish grandmother, who was a witness in the time of the Inquisition"

Jean Laffite knew that de Sedella was a Spanish spy who had once been appointed as Grand Inquisitor for New Orleans when Spain still ruled over Louisiana. But Laffite understood that in order for America to come out of the war unscathed with its constitution intact, it was important to allow de Sedella and his parishioners the freedom to pray whichever way they wanted. The United States did not need forced prayers in order to win the Battle of New Orleans. It needed gunpowder and trained artillerymen, which Laffite freely supplied on his own initiative and at his own expense. He supported the United States, because he wanted to live in a country free from religious oppression. A country that would not oppress people like his grandmother.

Today, possibly because of our current public education system, very few people understand that the first amendment guarantees of religious freedom mean that we can't tell other people what to believe, what to pray for. or what ceremonies their clergy must perform. Hillary Clinton does not support freedom of religion and Donald Trump will not defend it. Among the Libertarian presidential candidates, Gary Johnson, whose heart might be in the right place, seems very confused about the first amendment right to freedom of religion.

Of all the candidates, only Austin Petersen has demonstrated the intellectual ability to articulate and stand up for the freedom of religion guaranteed in the first amendment. And that's one of the many reasons that I support his candidacy for President of the United States.

The Argument Against Conscription and Confiscation

It is all well and good to stand for liberty, but if you  cannot fight to defend it, all your pretty words are meaningless. It is all very good to be a hawk in the protection of your country, but if you overlook the liberties you are fighting for in your eagerness to win the fight, then you are ultimately no patriot. It is a rare man who is both good at war and still remembers during the din of battle what he is supposed to be defending.

That Joseph Alston, as Governor of South Carolina during the War of 1812, was not a great leader of men is true. When he called up the militia, they came, but they refused to follow his orders, and eventually went home. And when he wanted to court martial their leaders, he was thwarted by a writ of habeas corpus that required him to let the men go.

http://www.historiaobscura.com/governor-joseph-alstons-record-in-the-war-of-1812/


Now, a charismatic man like Andrew Jackson would not have stood for that. He would have declared martial law, incarcerated the judge, put away any journalists who spoke up against his tyrannical actions, and created an armed camp out of the city he was visiting.

http://www.historiaobscura.com/andrew-jacksons-fine-and-the-place-of-martial-law-in-american-politics/

Though Alston was no great hero, and there is much to criticize in his handling of the war, he at least recognized the rule of law. Jackson was a good military leader, but he did not live by the rule of law, and so ultimately his actions served to undermine the constitution for which he should have been fighting.

Today, people on either side of the left/right divide argue about when it is necessary to force people at the point of the gun to contribute to the war effort, either through conscription or through taxation. But there is one great American hero from the War of 1812 who was in favor of neither: Jean Laffite.

http://www.historiaobscura.com/commemoration-of-a-hero-jean-laffite-and-the-battle-of-new-orleans/

Jean Laffite did not merely volunteer to fight for America and bring along with him many other volunteers that fought in the Battle of New Orleans. He also supplied artillery, gunpowder and flints without which the battle could not be won.

A real American, one who fights for our liberty, does so at his own expense and not by sacrificing the freedom of others. He obeys the constitution and respects the rights of others to their property and their persons. But he does disregard unconstitutional laws that result in confiscation and conscription. Because if the only way to save the country is to jettison the constitution, what is the point in fighting at all?

The Andrew Jackson Contempt Fine Refund Debates

It was Senator Lewis Field Linn from Missouri who in 1842 introduced the bill to get Andrew Jackson a refund from Congress of his contempt fine of a thousand dollars paid in 1815 under the orders of Judge Dominick Hall.

Lewis Field Linn
from the wikipedia

At the time, Jean Laffite was residing in Missouri and may well have been one of Linn's constituents. The debates about Jackson's refund raged for two years, and Linn did not live to see the thing to its conclusion, as he died on October 3, 1843.

What must Jean Laffite have thought, reading in the papers about those debates? Did Andrew Jackson deserve to have his thousand dollars refunded for trampling on the civil liberties of citizens in New Orleans? In contrast, did he, Jean Laffite,  who saved to city of New Orleans from the British by donating flints and powder and artillery and men and fighting for its defense at the risk of his life not deserve to have his $500,000 loss at the hands of Patterson and Ross during their raid on Barataria refunded? Which refund would have advanced the cause of liberty? Which was meant only to weaken civil liberties in times of war?

Next year, 2015, marks the 200th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans. Many celebrations are being planned, and those of us who are interested, but live far away, can only regret that we can't afford to go. But did you know that Andrew Jackson himself faced a similar situation in 1839? He wrote to his nephew, Andrew Jackson Donelson that it would be impossible for him to attend the annual Battle of New Orleans celebration in Louisiana, due to insufficient funds. He then hinted that the thousand dollars he paid to the court back in 1815 as a contempt fine ought really to be refunded to him, as he had sacrificed so much for his country! You didn't see Jean Laffite making such complaints. He could not go to New Orleans for the celebration, not because he didn't have enough money for the trip, but because if he were recognized, he might still be hanged for a pirate!

Whenever we are feeling sorry for ourselves and think we have been dealt with unfairly, it is good to remember Jean Laffite, who was dealt with the most unfairly of all.

Alexander Bellow, from Louisiana, offered a modification to Senator Linn's proposed bill to the effect that nothing in the refund should be construed as questioning the fidelity of the citizens of New Orleans, but a reply quickly came that of course the fidelity of citizens of New Orleans was in question. That was the reason for the imposition of martial law against them in the first place!

If that was the case, then Andrew Jackson came not as a liberator but as a conqueror to that city! Meanwhile, in December,  close to Christmas, Senator Linn tried to support the refund bill by declaring: "This bill must pass. The American people have willed it.  All go for it -- Jew and Gentile, Democrat and Whig...." But the bill did not pass.

The bill was introduced in the House by Charles Jared Ingersoll in March of 1842 as "A Bill for the Relief of General Andrew Jackson." Jackson did not like it. It made him seem like a pauper and in need of charity. He wanted it said that the fine he had been forced to pay was unjust, because he had done nothing wrong.

John Quincy Adams spoke up against the bill, saying it had already been passed, but Jackson supporters did not want it unless it spoke ill of the judge who ordered the fine.

President Tyler had this to say about the bill in his Annual Message: "I have no doubt that the American people wished this fine to be paid back. It might be so. At least a portion of them wished it -- a portion commonly called the Democratic Party."

After this, all partisan hell broke loose and John Quincy Adams declared that all the Democrats were paying court to Andrew Jackson, as he would choose the next presidential candidate for that party.

But as this proved to be actually true, the Democrats redoubled their efforts to pass the bill!  Charles Conrad of Louisiana lost his seat as a result of not backing the bill, and it was clear that Andrew Jackson was a kingmaker for the party. John C. Calhoun resigned from the senate rather than get embroiled in the refund debates. He wanted to run for president, so he could not afford to make waves.

When the refund eventually passed  and President Tyler signed it into law on February 16, 1844, it carried six percent interest per annum, so that Jackson for his thousand dollar investment in 1815 got $2,732.90.

Not a bad deal, considering what interest rates are like today! Meanwhile, Jean Laffite had to write off the $500,000 that Patterson and Ross stole from him as a bad debt. But he could afford to, because unlike Jackson, he was not a pauper.

                                              References
Warshauer, Matthew. 2006. Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

How to Take Back a Punishment and Be Vindicated

There are three branches to the United States government. What one takes away, another one can give back. For instance, if the legislative branch makes a mistake and passes an unconstitutional act, the executive can refuse to enforce it and the judicial can nullify it.

If somebody is wrongfully adjudicated guilty of a crime, the executive can pardon the accused, and the legislative can offer restitution in payment for what has been suffered.

But what if someone is in the middle of a lawsuit to reclaim his property, and the legislature just passes a law that the spoils go to one of the parties to the litigation? I don't have direct evidence of this myself, but I have heard that something like that happened to the goods belonging to Jean and Pierre Laffite. Before their lawsuit could come to trial, a law was passed to the effect that the goods belonged to Patterson. Is that constitutional?

It's good to have checks and balances. And yet.... this ability to undo what has already been done can be misused. And sometimes a person does not want  a pardon for a crime he has not committed. He wants vindication, instead.

Notice that when President Madison pardoned all the Baratarians who served in the Battle of New Orleans, Jean Laffite did not claim that pardon, because he believed he was not guilty of a crime.

And when Andrew Jackson was forced to pay $1000.00 as a fine for being in contempt of court, for having Judge Hall incarcerated for granting a writ of habeas corpus during Jackson's imposition of martial law, Jackson never asked for a pardon. Instead, toward the end of his life, he got Congress to pass a law that the fine was to be paid back to him.

Why? Was it because he needed the money? Or was he trying to make a point? According to the book by Matthew Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law it was because: “He viewed the return of his fine as a larger statement about the legitimacy of violating the constitution and civil liberties in times of national emergency.”

What can we learn from this? If you get in trouble, but you want to be vindicated, don't go for a pardon. Get an act of Congress to refund your money.

When is Martial Law Justified? Who Can Impose it?

I am reading a book entitled Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law by Matthew  Warshauer. Of course, the first thing I do is turn to the index and look for Aaron Burr. The index lists just one mention, on page 21.

The turmoil in New Orleans was, of course, not the first time that conspiracies and plots presented a danger to the city. Aaron Burr's infamous attempt to separate the southern portion of the newly acquired Louisiana Territory in 1805-7 had prompted concerns. As a result of the warnings over Burr, Gen. James Wilkinson, who was also a longtime friend of his and a co-conspirator, attempted to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and proclaim martial law.

Channeling Theodosia, I am tempted to fling the open book across the room. But since I'm not Theodosia, and I love books of all sorts, I just put it gently down on the table, on top of a bunch of other books I am also reading. Outside, Bow is enjoying the crisp autumn day.

Why is it that so many historians still have swallowed whole the entire "Burr Conspiracy" story, which was concocted by James Wilkinson and embraced by Thomas Jefferson? Even if we know nothing at all about the history of the falling out between Jefferson and Burr, even if we don't realize that Burr was exonerated of the charge of planning to separate the western territories and only convicted for violating the Neutrality Act, which was because he was going to war with Spain as a private American citizen -- not unlike Sam Houston  in his day --  then surely the words in the paragraph quoted above themselves would put us on notice that something does not tally.

We are told that James Wilkinson was a friend and a co-conspirator of Burr's and that when he heard "warnings about Burr" he attempted to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law. On whose behalf was he doing it? Not for Burr. He was arresting Burr and all his friends and depriving them of their right to a day in court. He was doing this for the sake of Thomas Jefferson and also for his Spanish employers. It is a well established fact that Wilkinson was in the employ of Spain, and that he betrayed Burr at the behest of his Spanish employers, who did not want Burr to succeed in conquering Mexico or liberating Texas. Yet if we read the paragraph not knowing this, we might have supposed that Wilkinson was imposing martial law to help Burr with his "conspiracy".

 Nevertheless, I calm down and pick the book back up, to see what I can learn about Wilkinson's attempt to impose martial law.

The result of  of Wilkinson's defiance of the writ of habeas corpus was the 1807 Supreme Court decision of  Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout, which declared that only the legislature can suspend the writ. Prior to this decision, who exactly could suspend the writ of habeas corpus was in some question. 

This is all just preparation for the discussion later on in Warshauer's book of what happened when Andrew Jackson declared Martial Law in New Orleans before the Battle of New Orleans and kept it in effect even after a peace treaty was known to have been signed, officially ending the war, and all without getting congress to approve the suspension.

Is the imposition of Martial Law ever really done by voting about it? An essentially undemocratic action, is it ever democratically brought about? Is it ever left for the people or their representatives to decide on, or is it not something that by its nature is imposed by the executive branch, acting on its military prerogatives, constitutional or not? I will have to read the rest of the book to find out.

But before I start reading, I can't help but check the index for Jean Laffite. There is just one mention, pages 22-23.

Old Hickory ultimately solved the ... problem by invading the city [Barancas]  in November 1814 and driving the English from the area, but in the meantime they had arrived below New Orleans and approached the Baratarian pirate, Jean Laffite, to enlist his aid in capturing the city. Laffite had cleverly stalled the British and informed members of the Louisiana legislature of the enemy's plan. Yet the British infiltration in the area alarmed the general, and on December 15 he published an address to the citizens... '...The rules and articles of war annex the punishment of death to any person holding secret correspondence with the enemy.'

Warshauer notes that these rules were traditionally applicable to soldiers only, but Jackson was applying them to all the residents of New Orleans.

This book seems kinder to Jean Laffite than to Aaron Burr, even though the word "pirate" is used, but I will have to read it in its entirety to see how fairly it treats Andrew Jackson, and what we can learn about the roots of martial law and suspension of habeas corpus under which we live today. Where exactly do no-knock warrants or the siege of Mt. Carmel fit into the general scheme of our constitutional freedoms? What about the NDAA or the "sheltering at home" required in Boston after the Marathon bombing? If a general rode into your town today and declared that anyone not for him is against him and subject to the penalty of death for speaking with "the enemy", what recourse would you have against that?

I will post a full report on the book once I have had a chance to read and digest it.

Ode to Privateers

Today on Historia Obscura, we have the first poem about the Battle of New Orleans.

The First Battle of New Orleans poem

Notably absent is any mention of Jean Laffite. To correct this omission, I have written a different poem about the same topic.

Sketch of Jean Laffite by Lanie Frick

Ode to Privateers

by Aya Katz

There are men who die for their nation,

    Who unselfishly give up their lives

There are men who live for their station,

    Who prevail without sacrifice.

There are women who raise up their children,

      And scrub floors and clean bottoms and nurse,

At the end of the day they want payment

      In undying love and remorse.

But the love that is true does not barter

Or require one to suffer to pay

For the care and affection a baby

Ought always to have anyway.

Now Britain was one kind of mother

Who demanded a fee for her love,

And she forced former children to serve her,

And she never accepted rebuff.

She kidnapped, indentured those sailors,

     Who had never agreed they should serve

And she thought she could live off the payments

     That others were making to her.

But Americans swore they were freemen,

      And only would work for their gain

And they never consented to fiefdom

     To serve under England or Spain.

Now Madison turned to the Congress

     And he asked that a war be declared

Against Britain, that unruly mother,

     Who forced sailors under her care.

But the coffers of war they were empty,

     And the army and navy were poor

And American patriot  menfolk

    Were not ready to set out to war.

They had sworn that they never would live for

    Another, and only alone for their gain,

And who wants to die for the right to

     Avoid paying taxes again? 

If not for the brave privateers who

Had always made war for their gain,

Who would set aside natural fear for

The right to know freedom again?

When the British approached Jean Laffite and

Required that he help them regain

Their colonial holdings, discreetly

  He sent word to Americans then.

He said:  "Though you're holding my brother,

   "In that dirty old Cabildo jail,"

"I will never agree to serve Britain,

    "And I  do want your side to prevail."

But Patterson, hearing the news that

    The British were near Mobile Point,

Instead of defending Ft. Bowyer,

    Came and ransacked closer to home.

He took all the ships that Laffite had,

   The stores were to serve as his spoils,

And he feasted on chocolate and Seegars

    And he cared not the British to foil.

So it came that when Jackson came marching

     His ragtag troops for their stint,

They were shoeless and all out of powder,

    And awfully short on the flint. 

And up spoke Laffite: "Let me help you,

      "I have men, and cannons and flint,

"I have barrels and barrels of powder,

      "We will fight for you, just let us in! "

There are men who fight for their nation,

     Because in fighting they gain,

And together they vanquished the British,

    Who were crushed so that few did remain.

And the British, they begged to be let go,

    And America won on that day,

And not because taxes or duties

   Or regular armies held sway.

For the men who have chosen no thralldom,

     And who fight every day for their bread,

Are the ones who are ready when called on,

     Who can shoot at the foe until dead.

There are men who will fight but are fearful,

     And who miss because of that fear,

But the reason we all are still here is

    Because there were once privateers.

Professionals and Government Men in the Service of War

In the end, a peace treaty was signed, and all was right with the world, and the British and the Americans remembered that they were brothers. And they proceeded to eliminate the competition to their hegemony, and they harried privateers without let until there were no privateers left either side of the Atlantic. And there were taxes laid, and there were duties levied, and the Americans paid the British the debt they owed to Napoleon for the Louisiana Purchase. And there followed the Panic of 1819.

But once upon a time,  the British and the Americans were at war, and they used their professional Navy men to fight each other, and their professional Navy men often made mistakes that might easily have cost either side the war. But still they were more concerned with law and order than with winning. 

The British Visit to Laffite

The British enlisted the aid of Jean Laffite, but he sent word to the Americans that the British planned to attack Ft. Bowyer, and the Americans, hearing this, sent Commodore Patterson to destroy Jean Laffite and his fleet of light ships that sailed in shallow waters.

And the Patterson expedition took the light vessels that the privateers had and they did not use them in battle, but only kept them from being used in service of their own cause. And even though Patterson knew there would be an attack on Ft. Bowyer, he did nothing to help the Americans at that fort.

Captain Percy's Folly

But luckily for the Americans, the British had incompetent officers who did not know how to attack a fort in shallow waters, and Captain Percy, after heavy loss of life,  ended up having to blow up his own ship and return to Pensacola, beaten.

Jean Laffite and the Battle of New Orleans

But still the Americans were not ready, and when Andrew Jackson set out to New Orleans, he did not even have the gunpowder and the flints that would be necessary to beat the British,  And all the while he was denouncing Jean Laffite and his men as banditti, he eventually realized that he needed their help. 

So the banditti were temporarily pardoned and enlisted and Jean Laffite supplied the gunpowder and the flint that won the Battle of New Orleans. And after the peace was signed, and after the Martial Law was lifted, and after life went back to normal. the ships that were pilfered were not returned, the gunpowder and flints were not paid for, and eventually, Jean Laffite and other privateers were run out of town, and outlawed and persecuted, until they were heard from no more.

That is the story of that war, in which neither side really won, and in which both sides agreed they disliked privateers more than they disliked each other. And it was decided we needed a stronger army and a stronger Navy, all at taxpayer expense. And the entire point of the American Revolution was forgotten.

It happened two hundred years ago, more or less. 

Why not Honor Jean Laffite? Because Acknowledging a Debt is Hard

On Historia Obscura, the latest article is about how we should honor Jean Laffite for his contributions to the American victory in the series of engagements known as the Battle of New Orleans. You would think that after nearly two hundred years, that proposition would be relatively uncontroversial. All of Laffite's enemies have since died, his contemporary rivals and detractors are not  here to continue to besmirch his name, and we have access to the facts.

And yet down in New Orleans there is some fellow by the name of Tim Pickles who wants to say that Jean Laffite helped the British and not the Americans. Why? What's in it for him? Maybe he is a historian who hopes to get credit for a revision of history. Maybe repeating the same old story won't win him any points.

But there are others who step up to support him, in a seemingly unmotivated, disinterested way. One comment was that the only real question  is where Jean Laffite was at every point in each battle, turning the issue of Laffite's loyalty into a historical game of  "Where's Waldo?"

Really? Where was Andrew Jackson at every point in each battle? If we find no record of his whereabouts at any particular junction, are we going to assume that he had sold out to the British?

An Artist's Conception of Jean Laffite by Lanie Frick

People seem to doubt the loyalty of Jean Laffite to the United States precisely because the United States government was not kind to him. Where he offered support and undying loyalty, courage in battle and materials supplied with no hope of ever being repaid, they sent ships against him, robbed him of his goods, and after the war eventually chased him away, forcing him to relocate to Galveston and afterwards telling him he must leave there, too. Sometimes when people are being mean to you, they project their own feelings onto you, assuming that you can't possibly like them, because they don't deserve it.

But Jean Laffite did like the United States of America. He loved it very much, so much so that he was willing to give his life, his wealth and his sacred honor in its support. Was he a courageous fighter, a bold tactician and a commander of men? Yes. And he used all that to help with the Battle of New Orleans. He was right there in the thick of things, getting his hands dirty building mud fortifications, making sure everyone had enough flints for their muskets and advising about the lay of the land, which was not known to Andrew Jackson. He went down the line and helped lift the morale of the men. He sent key personnel to important locations to be where they needed to be to meet and defeat the enemy.

But Jean Laffite was also a financier, a businessman and privateer. One of his major contributions to the Battle of New Orleans was supplying gunpowder and flints free of charge at a time when the regular armed forces of the United States did not have any.

The idea that Laffite's contribution should be judged solely on his achievements as a foot soldier -- how many men he shot with a musket or a cannon or killed with his bare hands -- is ludicrous. We don't judge Andrew Jackson that way!

Why would people think this? Perhaps because we have been conditioned to forget that patriotism and support of one's country can take many forms. George Washington was a great American, but so was Haym Solomon. Washington led armies and spent money. Haym Solomon provided an entire fortune to make sure that Washington could do this. There could not have been one without the other. But the contributions of the General are well known. The debt of the nation to the broker/banker is forgotten.

Jean Laffite was a renaissance man. He was like George Washington and Haym Solomon all rolled into one. He was a leader of men, a bold fighter and also the source of the funding for arming his own subordinates as well as Jackson's men. In this way, he is both a hero and a benefactor.

But people are seldom willing to openly acknowledge debts they can never repay.  Sometimes, when they are owed too much, benefactors are reviled by precisely those people who ought to be grateful. While Jackson acknowledged Jean Laffite's material contribution to the Battle of New Orleans, James Madison never did, except by a proclamation offering to pardon all who participated in the battle. Pardon! What was there to pardon? That they didn't pay customs taxes? What about all the money they contributed to the government during the war?

The United States of America was founded on the idea that taxes should not be taken by force, but that people should use their own money and their own muskets and their own gunpowder and flints to form a well regulated militia. That was the distinguishing factor between the British and the Americans. That was why Jean Laffite was on the American side in the first place. It was why  though "proscribed" by his adopted country, he continued to love her and to want her to prosper.

 Madison, in his pardon proclamation,  named no names and offered no commendations, and the ships and goods plundered by the United States Army and Navy in the Patterson-Ross raid were never returned. The gunpowder and flint donated after the raid were never paid for. In the end, the atmosphere in New Orleans became so poisonous toward the Laffites that they decided they had better leave and start life elsewhere.

Why did this happen? Because when people rob you, they will not be content just to take your goods. They will also want to be able to justify what they did by saying you deserved it. This kind of behavior is going on to this very day.

Let's remember the debt we all owe to Jean Laffite. It can never be repaid, but the least we can do is give credit where credit is due. He was a hero, and he was wronged. Let's not forget what he did for the nation, despite the way he was treated!