Seems to be a lot of good responses here. I think the singer has to determine for themselves what is important. I do not like encouraging lies or misunderstanding with song or anything else for that matter. But myth can have its own kind of truth. People are most likely to act upon that which they believe to be true than on what is actually factual. When a song reports an act based upon even a false belief there may be some merit in the song not for what it tells of the historical event but for what it tells of the people involved in the event. In the case of songs such as the "Battle of New Orleans" which are a sort of fiction to begin with having been composed more than a century after the event, the singer might check on the facts that are known and be armed with some truth about the event. The Battle is a glorified account but might represent what some of the members of Jackson's army might later tell the home folks. While Jimmy Driftwood claimed to have written the Battle of New Orleans as a way of teaching history to his students, one might question that claim. Jimmy did know factual details about historical events and would have known what actually occurred. He was also a master teller of tall tales and that is what the song seems to be; a tall tale. On the other hand, it reflects the jubilation of the victors in the battle.