Chapter V (2)

Altogether the best criticism on the fight is that written by M. de la Gravière. [Footnote: "Guerres Maritimes," ii, 272.] "It is impossible to avoid seeing in the capture of the _Chesapeake_ a new proof of the enormous power of a good organization, when it has received the consecration of a few years' actual service on the sea. On this occasion, in effect, two captains equally renowned, the honor of two navies, were opposed to each other on two ships of the same tonnage and number of guns. Never had the chances seemed better balanced, but Sir Philip Broke had commanded the _Shannon_ for nearly seven years, while Captain Lawrence had only commanded the _Chesapeake_ for a few days. The first of these frigates had cruised for eighteen months on the coast of America; the second was leaving port. One had a crew long accustomed to habits of strict obedience; the other was manned by men who had just been engaged in mutiny. The Americans were wrong to accuse fortune on this occasion. Fortune was not fickle, she was merely logical. The _Shannon_ captured the _Chesapeake_ on the first of June, 1813, but on the 14th of September, 1806, the day when he took command of his frigate, Captain Broke had begun to prepare the glorious termination to this bloody affair."

Hard as it is to breathe a word against such a man as Lawrence, a very Bayard of the seas, who was admired as much for his dauntless bravery as he was loved for his gentleness and uprightness, it must be confessed that he acted rashly. And after he had sailed, it was, as Lord Howard Douglass has pointed out, a tactical error, however chivalric to neglect the chance of luffing across the _Shannon's_ stern to rake her; exactly as it was a tactical error of his equally chivalrous antagonist to have let him have such an opportunity. Hull would not have committed either error, and would, for the matter of that, have been an overmatch for either commander. But it must always be remembered that Lawrence's encounters with the English had not been such as to give him a high opinion of them. The only foe he had fought had been inferior in strength, it is true, but had hardly made any effective resistance. Another sloop, of equal, if not superior force, had tamely submitted to blockade for several days, and had absolutely refused to fight. And there can be no doubt that the _Chesapeake_, unprepared though she was, would have been an overmatch for the _Guerrière_, _Macedonian_, or _Java_. Altogether it is hard to blame Lawrence for going out, and in every other respect his actions never have been, nor will be, mentioned, by either friend or foe, without the warmest respect. But that is no reason for insisting that he was ruined purely by an adverse fate. We will do far better to recollect that as much can be learned from reverses as from victories. Instead of flattering ourselves by saying the defeat was due to chance, let us try to find out what the real cause was, and then take care that it does not have an opportunity to act again. A little less rashness would have saved Lawrence's life and his frigate, while a little more audacity on one occasion would have made Commodore Chauncy famous for ever. And whether a lesson is to be learned or not, a historian should remember that his profession is not that of a panegyrist. The facts of the case unquestionably are that Captain Broke, in fair fight, within sight of the enemy's harbor, proved conqueror over a nominally equal and in reality slightly superior force; and that this is the only single-ship action of the war in which the victor was weaker in force than his opponent. So much can be gathered by reading only the American accounts. Moreover accident had little or nothing to do with the gaining of the victory. The explanation is perfectly easy; Lawrence and Broke were probably exactly equal in almost every thing that goes to make up a first-class commander, but one had trained his crew for seven years, and the other was new to the ship, to the officers, and to the men, and the last to each other. The _Chesapeake's_ crew must have been of fine material, or they would not have fought so well as they did.

So much for the American accounts. On the other hand, the capture of the _Chesapeake_ was, and is, held by many British historians to "conclusively prove" a good many different things; such as, that if the odds were anything like equal, a British frigate could always whip an American, that in a hand-to-hand conflict such would invariably be the case, etc.; and as this was the only single-ship action of the war in which the victor was the inferior in force, most British writers insist that it reflected more honor on them than all the frigate actions of 1812 put together did on the Americans.

These assertions can be best appreciated by reference to a victory won by the French in the year of the Battle of the Nile. On the 14th of December, 1798, after two hours' conflict, the French 24-gun corvette _Bayonnaise_ captured, by boarding, the English 32-gun frigate _Ambuscade_. According to James the _Ambuscade_ threw at a broadside 262 pounds of shot, and was manned by 190 men, while the _Bayonnaise_ threw 150 pounds, and had on board supernumeraries and passenger soldiers enough to make in all 250 men. According to the French historian Rouvier [Footnote: "Histoire des Marins Français sous la République," par Charles Rouvier, Lieutenant de Vaisseau. Paris, 1868.] the broadside force was 246 pounds against 80 pounds; according to Troude [Footnote: "Batailles Navales."] it was 270 pounds against 112. M. Léon Guérin, in his voluminous but exceedingly prejudiced and one-sided work, [Footnote: "Histoire Maritime de France" (par Léon Guérin, Historien titulaire de la Marine, Membre de la Legion d'Honneur), vi. 142 (Paris, 1852).] makes the difference even greater. At any rate the English vessel was vastly the superior in force, and was captured by boarding, after a long and bloody conflict in which she lost 46, and her antagonist over 50, men. During all the wars waged with the Republic and the Empire, no English vessel captured a French one as much superior to itself as the _Ambuscade_ was to the _Bayonnaise_, precisely as in the war of 1812 no American vessel captured a British opponent as much superior to itself as the _Chesapeake_ was to the _Shannon_. Yet no sensible man can help acknowledging, in spite of these and a few other isolated instances, that at that time the French were inferior to the English, and the latter to the Americans.

It is amusing to compare the French histories of the English with the English histories of the Americans, and to notice the similarity of the arguments they use to detract from their opponents' fame. Of course I do not allude to such writers as Lord Howard Douglass or Admiral de la Gravière, but to men like William James and Léon Guérin, or even O. Troude. James is always recounting how American ships ran away from British ones, and Guérin tells as many anecdotes of British ships who fled from French foes. James reproaches the Americans for adopting a "Parthian" mode of warfare, instead of "bringing to in a bold and becoming manner." Precisely the same reproaches are used by the French writers, who assert that the English would not fight "fairly," but acquired an advantage by manoeuvring. James lays great stress on the American long guns; so does Lieutenant Rouvier on the British carronades. James always tells how the Americans avoided the British ships, when the crews of the latter demanded to be led aboard; Troude says the British always kept at long shot, while the French sailors "demandérent, à grands cris, l'abordage." James says the Americans "hesitated to grapple" with their foes "unless they possessed a twofold superiority"; Guérin that the English "never dared attack" except when they possessed "une supériorité énorme." The British sneer at the "mighty dollar"; the French at the "eternal guinea." The former consider Decatur's name as "sunk" to the level of Porter's or Bainbridge's; the latter assert that the "presumptuous Nelson" was inferior to any of the French admirals of the time preceding the Republic. Says James: "The Americans only fight well when they have the superiority of force on their side"; and Lieutenant Rouvier: "Never have the English vanquished us with an undoubted inferiority of force."

On June 12, 1813, the small cutter _Surveyor_, of 6 12-pound carronades, was lying in York River, in the Chesapeake, under the command of Mr. William S. Travis; her crew consisted of but 15 men. [Footnote: Letter of W. S. Travis, June 16, 1813.] At nightfall she was attacked by the boats of the _Narcissus_ frigate, containing about 50 men, under the command of Lieutenant John Creerie. [Footnote: James, vi. 334.] None of the carronades could be used; but Mr. Travis made every preparation that he could for defence. The Americans waited till the British were within pistol shot before they opened their fire; the latter dashed gallantly on, however, and at once carried the cutter. But though brief, the struggle was bloody; 5 of the Americans were wounded, and of the British 3 were killed and 7 wounded. Lieutenant Creerie considered his opponents to have shown so much bravery that he returned Mr. Travis his sword, with a letter as complimentary to him as it was creditable to the writer. [Footnote: The letter, dated June 13th, is as follows: "Your gallant and desperate attempt to defend your vessel against more than double your number, on the night of the 12th instant, excited such admiration on the part of your opponents as I have seldom witnessed, and induced me to return you the sword you had so nobly used, in testimony of mine. Our poor fellows have suffered severely, occasioned chiefly, if not solely, by the precautions you had taken to prevent surprise. In short, I am at a loss which to admire most, the previous arrangement aboard the _Surveyor_, or the determined manner in which her deck was disputed inch by inch. I am, sir," etc.]

As has been already mentioned, the Americans possessed a large force of gun-boats at the beginning of the war. Some of these were fairly sea-worthy vessels, of 90 tons burden, sloop--or schooner-rigged, and armed with one or two long, heavy guns, and sometime with several light carronades to repel boarders. [Footnote: According to a letter from Captain Hugh G. Campbell (in the Naval Archives, "Captains' Letters," 1812, vol. ii. Nos. 21 and 192), the crews were distributed as follows: ten men and a boy to a long 32. seven men and a boy to a long 9. and five men and a boy to a carronade, exclusive of petty officers. Captain Campbell complains of the scarcity of men, and rather naively remarks that he is glad the marines have been withdrawn from the gun boats, as this may make the commanders of the latter keep a brighter lookout than formerly.] Gun-boats of this kind, together with the few small cutters owned by the government, were serviceable enough. They were employed all along the shores of Georgia and the Carolinas, and in Long Island Sound, in protecting the coasting trade by convoying parties of small vessels from one port to another, and preventing them from being molested by the boats of any of the British frigates. They also acted as checks upon the latter in their descents upon the towns and plantations, occasionally capturing their boats and tenders, and forcing them to be very cautious in their operations. They were very useful in keeping privateers off the coast, and capturing them when they came too far in. The exploits of those on the southern coast will be mentioned as they occurred. Those in Long Island Sound never came into collision with the foe, except for a couple of slight skirmishes at very long range; but in convoying little fleets of coasters, and keeping at bay the man-of-war boats sent to molest them, they were invaluable; and they also kept the Sound clear of hostile privateers.

Many of the gun-boats were much smaller than those just mentioned, trusting mainly to their sweeps for motive power, and each relying for offence on one long pivot gun, a 12- or 18-pounder. In the Chesapeake there was a quite a large number of these small gallies, with a few of the larger kind, and here it was thought that by acting together in flotillas the gun-boats might in fine weather do considerable damage to the enemy's fleet by destroying detached vessels, instead of confining themselves to the more humble tasks in which their brethren elsewhere were fairly successful. At this period Denmark, having lost all her larger ships of war, was confining herself purely to gun-brigs. These were stout little crafts, with heavy guns, which, acting together, and being handled with spirit and skill, had on several occasions in calm weather captured small British sloops, and had twice so injured frigates as to make their return to Great Britain necessary; while they themselves had frequently been the object of successful cutting-out expeditions. Congress hoped that our gun-boats would do as well as the Danish; but for a variety of reasons they failed utterly in every serious attack that they made on a man-of-war, and were worse than useless for all but the various subordinate employments above mentioned. The main reason for this failure was in the gun-boats themselves. They were utterly useless except in perfectly calm weather, for in any wind the heavy guns caused them to careen over so as to make it difficult to keep them right side up, and impossible to fire. Even in smooth water they could not be fought at anchor, requiring to be kept in position by means of sweeps; and they were very unstable, the recoil of the guns causing them to roll so as to make it difficult to aim with any accuracy after the first discharge, while a single shot hitting one put it _hors de combat_. This last event rarely happened, however, for they were not often handled with any approach to temerity, and, on the contrary, usually made their attacks at a range that rendered it as impossible to inflict as to receive harm. It does not seem as if they were very well managed; but they were such ill-conditioned craft that the best officers might be pardoned for feeling uncomfortable in them. Their operations throughout the war offer a painfully ludicrous commentary on Jefferson's remarkable project of having our navy composed exclusively of such craft.

The first aggressive attempt made with the gun-boats was characteristically futile. On June 20th 15 of them, under Captain Tarbell, attacked the _Junon_, 38, Captain Sanders, then lying becalmed in Hampton Roads, with the _Barossa_, 36, and _Laurestinus_, 24, near her. The gun-boats, while still at very long range, anchored, and promptly drifted round so that they couldn't shoot. Then they got under way, and began gradually to draw nearer to the _Junon_. Her defence was very feeble; after some hasty and ill-directed vollies she endeavored to beat out of the way. But meanwhile, a slight breeze having sprung up, the _Barossa_, Captain Sherriff, approached near enough to take a hand in the affair, and at once made it evident that she was a more dangerous foe than the _Junon_, though a lighter ship. As soon as they felt the effects of the breeze the gun-boats became almost useless and, the _Barossa's_ fire being animated and well aimed, they withdrew. They had suffered nothing from the _Junon_, but during the short period she was engaged, the _Barossa_ had crippled one boat and slightly damaged another; one man was killed and two wounded. The _Barossa_ escaped unscathed and the _Junon_ was but slightly injured. Of the combatants, the _Barossa_ was the only one that came off with credit, the _Junon_ behaving, if any thing, rather worse than the gun-boats. There was no longer any doubt as to the amount of reliance to be placed on the latter. [Footnote: Though the flotilla men did nothing in the boats, they acted with the most stubborn bravery at the battle of Bladensburg. The British Lieutenant Graig, himself a spectator, thus writes of their deeds on that occasion ("Campaign at Washington," p. 119). "Of the sailors, however, it would be injustice not to speak in the terms which their conduct merits. They were employed as gunners, and not only did they serve their guns with a quickness and precision which astonished their assailants, but they stood till some of them were actually bayoneted with fuses in their hands; nor was it till their leader was wounded and taken, and they saw themselves deserted on all sides by the soldiers, that they quitted the field." Certainly such men could not be accused of lack of courage. Something else is needed to account for the failure of the gun-boat system.]

On June 20, 1813, a British force of three 74's, one 64, four frigates, two sloops, and three transports was anchored off Craney Island. On the north-west side of this island was a battery of 18-pounders, to take charge of which Captain Cassin, commanding the naval forces at Norfolk, sent ashore one hundred sailors of the _Constellation_, under the command of Lieutenants Neale, Shubrick, and Saunders, and fifty marines under Lieutenant Breckenbridge.[Footnote: Letter of Captain John Cassin, June 23, 1813.] On the morning of the 22d they were attacked by a division of 15 boats, containing 700 men, [Footnote: James, vi, 337.] seamen, marines, chasseurs, and soldiers of the 102d regiment, the whole under the command of Captain Pechell, of the _San Domingo_, 74. Captain Hanchett led the attack in the _Diadem's_ launch. The battery's guns were not fired till the British were close in, when they opened with destructive effect. While still some seventy yards from the guns the _Diadem's_ launch grounded, and the attack was checked. Three of the boats were now sunk by shot, but the water was so shallow that they remained above water; and while the fighting was still at its height, some of the _Constellation's_ crew, headed by Midshipman Tatnall, waded out and took possession of them. [Footnote: "Life of Commodore Josiah Tatnall," by Charles C. Jones, Jr. (Savannah, 1878), p. 17.] A few of their crew threw away their arms and came ashore with their captors; others escaped to the remaining boats, and immediately afterward the flotilla made off in disorder having lost 91 men. The three captured barges were large, strong boats, one called the Centipede being fifty feet long, and more formidable than many of the American gun-vessels. The _Constellation's_ men deserve great credit for their defence, but the British certainly did not attack with their usual obstinacy. When the foremost boats were sunk, the water was so shallow and the bottom so good that the Americans on shore, as just stated, at once waded out to them; and if in the heat of the fight Tatnall and his seamen could get _out_ to the boats, the 700 British ought to have been able to get _in_ to the battery, whose 150 defenders would then have stood no chance. [Footnote: James comments on this repulse as "a defeat as discreditable to those that caused it as honorable to those that suffered in it." "Unlike most other nations, the Americans in particular, the British, when engaged in expeditions of this nature, always rest their hopes of success upon valor rather than on numbers." These comments read particularly well when it is remembered that the assailants outnumbered the assailed in the proportion of 5 to 1. It is monotonous work to have to supplement a history by a running commentary on James' mistakes and inventions; but it is worth while to prove once for all the utter unreliability of the author who is accepted in Great Britain as the great authority about the war. Still, James is no worse than his compeers. In the American Coggeshall's "History of Privateers," the misstatements are as gross and the sneers in as poor taste--the British, instead of the Americans, being the objects.]

On July 14, 1813, the two small vessels _Scorpion_ and _Asp_, the latter commanded by Mr. Sigourney, got under way from out of the Yeocomico Creek, [Footnote: Letter of Midshipman McClintock, July 15, 1813.] and at 10 A.M. discovered in chase the British brig-sloops _Contest_, Captain James Rattray, and _Mohawk_, Captain Henry D. Byng. [Footnote: James, vi, 343.] The _Scorpion_ beat up the Chesapeake, but the dull-sailing _Asp_ had to reenter the creek; the two brigs anchored off the bar and hoisted out their boats, under the command of Lieutenant Rodger C. Curry; whereupon the _Asp_ cut her cable and ran up the creek some distance. Here she was attacked by three boats, which Mr. Sigourney and his crew of twenty men, with two light guns, beat off; but they were joined by two others, and the five carried the _Asp_, giving no quarter. Mr. Sigourney and 10 of his men were killed or wounded, while the British also suffered heavily, having 4 killed and 7 (including Lieutenant Curry) wounded. The surviving Americans reached the shore, rallied under Midshipman H. McClintock (second in command), and when the British retired after setting the _Asp_ on fire, at once boarded her, put out the flames, and got her in fighting order; but they were not again molested.

On July 29th, while the _Junon_, 38, Captain Sanders, and _Martin_, 18, Captain Senhouse, were in Delaware Bay, the latter grounded on the outside of Crow's Shoal; the frigate anchored within supporting distance, and while in this position the two ships were attacked by the American flotilla in those waters, consisting of eight gun-boats, carrying each 25 men and one long 32, and two heavier block-sloops, [Footnote: Letter of Lieutenant Angus, July 30, 1813.] commanded by Lieutenant Samuel Angus. The flotilla kept at such a distance that an hour's cannonading did no damage whatever to anybody; and during that time gun-boat No. 121, Sailing-master Shead, drifted a mile and a half away from her consorts. Seeing this the British made a dash at her, in 7 boats, containing 140 men, led by Lieutenant Philip Westphal. Mr. Shead anchored and made an obstinate defence, but at the first discharge the gun's pintle gave way, and the next time it was fired the gun-carriage was almost torn to pieces. He kept up a spirited fire of small arms, in reply to the boat-carronades and musketry of the assailants; but the latter advanced steadily and carried the gun-boat by boarding, 7 of her people being wounded, while 7 of the British were killed and 13 wounded. [Footnote: Letter of Mr. Shead. Aug. 5, 1813.] The defence of No. 121 was very creditable, but otherwise the honor of the day was certainly with the British; whether because the gun-boats were themselves so worthless or because they were not handled boldly enough, they did no damage, even to the grounded sloop, that would seem to have been at their mercy. [Footnote: The explanation possibly lies in the fact that the gun-boats had worthless powder. In the Naval Archives there is a letter from Mr. Angus ("Masters' Commandant Letters," 1813, No. 3: see also No. 91), in which he says that the frigate's shot passed over them, while theirs could not even reach the sloop. He also encloses a copy of a paper, signed by the other gun-boat officers, which runs: "We, the officers of the vessels comprising the Delaware flotilla, protest against the powder as being unfit for service."]

On June 18th the American brig-sloop _Argus_, commanded by Lieutenant William Henry Allen, late first of the _United States_, sailed from New York for France, with Mr. Crawford, minister for that country, aboard, and reached L'Orient on July 11th, having made one prize on the way. On July 14th she again sailed, and cruised in the chops of the Channel, capturing and burning ship after ship, and creating the greatest consternation among the London merchants; she then cruised along Cornwall and got into St. George's Channel, where the work of destruction went on. The labor was very severe and harassing, the men being able to get very little rest. [Footnote: Court of Inquiry into loss of _Argus_, 1815.] On the night of August 13th, a brig laden with wine from Oporto was captured and burnt, and unluckily many of the crew succeeded in getting at some of the cargo. At 5 A.M. on the 14th a large brig-of-war was discovered standing down under a cloud of canvas. [Footnote: Letter of Lieutenant Watson, March 2, 1815.] This was the British brig-sloop _Pelican_, Captain John Fordyce Maples, which, from information received at Cork three days previous, had been cruising especially after the _Argus_, and had at last found her; St. David's Head bore east five leagues (lat. 52° 15' N. and 5° 50' W.)

The small, fine-lined American cruiser, with her lofty masts and long spars, could easily have escaped from her heavier antagonist: but Captain Allen had no such intention, and, finding he could not get the weather-gage, he shortened sail and ran easily along on the starboard tack, while the _Pelican_ came down on him with the wind (which was from the south) nearly aft. At 6 A.M. the _Argus_ wore and fired her port guns within grape distance, the _Pelican_ responding with her starboard battery, and the action began with great spirit on both sides. [Footnote: Letter of Captain Maples to Admiral Thornborough, Aug. 14, 1813.] At 6.04 a round shot carried off Captain Allen's leg, inflicting a mortal wound, but he stayed on deck till he fainted from loss of blood. Soon the British fire carried away the main-braces, main-spring-stay, gaff, and try-sail mast of the _Argus_; the first lieutenant, Mr. Watson, was wounded in the head by a grape-shot and carried below; the second lieutenant, Mr. U. H. Allen (no relation of the captain), continued to fight the ship with great skill. The _Pelican's_ fire continued very heavy, the _Argus_ losing her spritsail-yard and most of the standing rigging on the port side of the foremast. At 6.14 Captain Maples bore up to pass astern of his antagonist, but Lieutenant Allen luffed into the wind and threw the main-top-sail aback, getting into a beautiful raking position [Footnote: Letter of Lieutenant Watson.]; had the men at the guns done their duty as well as those on the quarter-deck did theirs, the issue of the fight would have been very different; but, as it was, in spite of her favorable position, the raking broadside of the _Argus_ did little damage. Two or three minutes afterward the _Argus_ lost the use of her after-sails through having her preventer-main-braces and top-sail tie shot away, and fell off before the wind, when the _Pelican_ at 6.18 passed her stern, raking her heavily, and then ranged up on her starboard quarter. In a few minutes the wheel-ropes and running-rigging of every description were shot away, and the _Argus_ became utterly unmanageable. The _Pelican_ continued raking her with perfect impunity, and at 6.35 passed her broadside and took a position on her starboard bow, when at 6.45 the brigs fell together, and the British "were in the act of boarding when the _Argus_ struck her colors," [Footnote: Letter of Captain Maples.] at 6.45 A.M. The _Pelican_ carried, besides her regular armament, two long 6's as stern-chasers, and her broadside weight of metal was thus: [Footnote: James, vi, 320.]

1 X 6 1 X 6 1 X 12 8 X 32

or 280 lbs. against the _Argus_':

1 X 12 9 X 24

or, subtracting as usual 7 per cent. for light weight of metal, 210 lbs. The _Pelican's_ crew consisted of but 116 men, according to the British account, though the American reports make it much larger. The _Argus_ had started from New York with 137 men, but having manned and sent in several prizes, her crew amounted, as near as can be ascertained, to 104. Mr. Low in his "Naval History," published just after the event, makes it but 99. James makes it 121; as he placed the crew of the _Enterprise_ at 125, when it was really 102; that of the _Hornet_ at 162, instead of 135; of the _Peacock_ at 185, instead of 166; of the _Nautilus_ at 106 instead of 95, etc., etc., it is safe to presume that he has overestimated it by at least 20, which brings the number pretty near to the American accounts. The _Pelican_ lost but two men killed and five wounded. Captain Maples had a narrow escape, a spent grape-shot striking him in the chest with some force, and then falling on the deck. One shot had passed through the boatswain's and one through the carpenter's cabin; her sides were filled with grape-shot, and her rigging and sails much injured; her foremast, main-top-mast, and royal masts were slightly wounded, and two of her carronades dismounted.

The injuries of the _Argus_ have already been detailed; her hull and lower masts were also tolerably well cut up. Of her crew, Captain Allen, two midshipmen, the carpenter, and six seamen were killed or mortally wounded; her first lieutenant and 13 seamen severely and slightly wounded: total, 10 killed and 14 wounded.

In reckoning the comparative force, I include the Englishman's six-pound stern-chaser, which could not be fired in broadside with the rest of the guns, because I include the _Argus_' 12-pound bow-chaser, which also could not be fired in broadside, as it was crowded into the bridle-port. James, of course, carefully includes the latter, though leaving out the former.

COMPARISON.

Comparative
No. Weight Comparative Loss
Tons. Guns. Metal. Men. Loss. Force. Inflicted.
_Argus_ 298 10 210 104 24 .82 .29
_Pelican_ 467 11 280 116 7 1.00 1.00

Of all the single-ship actions fought in the war this is the least creditable to the Americans. The odds in force, it is true, were against the _Argus_, about in the proportion of 10 to 8, but this is neither enough to account for the loss inflicted being as 10 to 3, nor for her surrendering when she had been so little ill used. It was not even as if her antagonist had been an unusually fine vessel of her class. The _Pelican_ did not do as well as either the _Frolic_ previously, or the _Reindeer_ afterward, though perhaps rather better than the _Avon_, _Penguin_, or _Peacock_. With a comparatively unmanageable antagonist, in smooth water, she ought to have sunk her in three quarters of an hour. But the _Pelican's_ not having done particularly well merely makes the conduct of the Americans look worse; it is just the reverse of the _Chesapeake's_ case, where, paying the highest credit to the British, we still thought the fight no discredit to us. Here we can indulge no such reflection. The officers did well, but the crew did not. Cooper says: "The enemy was so much heavier that it may be doubted whether the _Argus_ would have captured her antagonist under any ordinary circumstances." This I doubt; such a crew as the _Wasp's_ or _Hornet's_ probably would have been successful. The trouble with the guns of the _Argus_ was not so much that they were too small, as that they did not hit; and this seems all the more incomprehensible when it is remembered that Captain Allen is the very man to whom Commodore Decatur, in his official letter, attributed the skilful gun-practice of the crew of the frigate _United States_. Cooper says that the powder was bad; and it has also been said that the men of the _Argus_ were over-fatigued and were drunk, in which case they ought not to have been brought into action. Besides unskilfulness, there is another very serious count against the crew. Had the _Pelican_ been some distance from the _Argus_, and in a position where she could pour in her fire with perfect impunity to herself, when the surrender took place, it would have been more justifiable. But, on the contrary, the vessels were touching, and the British boarded just as the colors were hauled down; it was certainly very disgraceful that the Americans did not rally to repel them, for they had still four fifths of their number absolutely untouched. They certainly _ought_ to have succeeded, for boarding is a difficult and dangerous experiment; and if they had repulsed their antagonists they might in turn have carried the _Pelican_. So that, in summing up the merits of this action, it is fair to say that both sides showed skilful seamanship and unskilful gunnery; that the British fought bravely and that the Americans did not.

It is somewhat interesting to compare this fight, where a weaker American sloop was taken by a stronger British one, with two or three others, where both the comparative force and the result were reversed. Comparing it, therefore, with the actions between the _Hornet_ and _Peacock_ (British), the _Wasp_ and _Avon_, and the _Peacock_ (American) and _Epervier_, we get four actions, in one of which, the first-named, the British were victorious, and in the other three the Americans.

Comparative Comparative Loss Per cent.
Force. Inflicted. Loss.

_Pelican_ (British) 1.00 1.00 .06 _Argus_ (American) .82 .29 .23

_Hornet_ (American) 1.00 1.00 .02 _Peacock_ (British) .83 .07 .31

_Wasp_ (American) 1.00 1.00 .02 _Avon_ (British) .80 .07 .33

_Peacock_ (American) 1.00 1.00 .01 _Epervier_ (British) .81 .08 .20

It is thus seen that in these sloop actions the superiority of force on the side of the victor was each time about the same. The _Argus_ made a much more effectual resistance than did either the _Peacock_, _Avon_, or _Epervier_, while the _Pelican_ did her work in poorer form than either of the victorious American sloops; and, on the other hand, the resistance of the _Argus_ did not by any means show as much bravery as was shown in the defence of the _Peacock_ or _Avon_, although rather more than in the case of the _Epervier_.

This is the only action of the war where it is almost impossible to find out the cause of the inferiority of the beaten crew. In almost all other cases we find that one crew had been carefully drilled, and so proved superior to a less-trained antagonist; but it is incredible that the man, to whose exertions when first lieutenant of the _States_ Commodore Decatur ascribes the skilfulness of that ship's men, should have neglected to train his own crew; and this had the reputation of being composed of a fine set of men. Bad powder would not account for the surrender of the _Argus_ when so little damaged. It really seems as if the men _must_ have been drunk or over-fatigued, as has been so often asserted. Of course drunkenness would account for the defeat, although not in the least altering its humiliating character.

"Et tu quoque" is not much of an argument; still it may be as well to call to mind here two engagements in which British sloops suffered much more discreditable defeats than the _Argus_ did. The figures are taken from James; as given by the French historians they make even a worse showing for the British.

A short time before our war the British brig _Carnation_, 18, had been captured, by boarding, by the French brig _Palinure_, 16, and the British brig _Alacrity_, 18, had been captured, also by boarding, by the corvette _Abeille_, 20.

The following was the comparative force, etc., of the combatants:

Weight Metal. No. Crew. Loss. _Carnation_ 262 117 40 _Palmure_ 174 100 20

_Alacrity_ 262 100 18 _Abeille_ 260 130 19

In spite of the pride the British take in their hand-to-hand prowess both of these ships were captured by boarding. The _Carnation_ was captured by a much smaller force, instead of by a much larger one, as in the case of the _Argus_; and if the _Argus_ gave up before she had suffered greatly, the _Alacrity_ surrendered when she had suffered still less. French historians asserted that the capture of the two brigs proved that "French valor could conquer British courage"; and a similar opinion was very complacently expressed by British historians after the defeat of the _Argus_. All that the three combats really "proved" was, that in eight encounters between British and American sloops the Americans were defeated once, and in a far greater number of encounters between French and British sloops the British were defeated twice. No one pretends that either navy was invincible; the question is, which side averaged best?

At the opening of the war we possessed several small brigs; these had originally been fast, handy little schooners, each armed with 12 long sixes, and with a crew of 60 men. As such they were effective enough; but when afterward changed into brigs, each armed with a couple of extra guns, and given 40 additional men, they became too slow to run, without becoming strong enough to fight. They carried far too many guns and men for their size, and not enough to give them a chance with any respectable opponent; and they were almost all ignominiously captured. The single exception was the brig _Enterprise_. She managed to escape capture, owing chiefly to good luck, and once fought a victorious engagement, thanks to the fact that the British possessed a class of vessels even worse than our own. She was kept near the land and finally took up her station off the eastern coast, where she did good service in chasing away or capturing the various Nova Scotian or New Brunswick privateers, which were smaller and less formidable vessels than the privateers of the United States, and not calculated for fighting.

By crowding guns into her bridle-ports, and over-manning herself, the _Enterprise_, now under the command of Lieutenant William Burrows, mounted 14 eighteen-pound carronades and 2 long 9's, with 102 men. On September 5th, while standing along shore near Penguin Point, a few miles to the eastward of Portland, Me., she discovered, at anchor inside, a man-of-war brig [Footnote: Letter from Lieutenant Edward R. McCall to Commodore Hull, September 5, 1813.] which proved to be H.M.S. _Boxer_, Captain Samuel Blyth, of 12 carronades, eighteen-pounders and two long sixes, with but 66 men aboard, 12 of her crew being absent.[Footnote: James, "Naval Occurrences," 264. The American accounts give the _Boxer_ 104 men, on very insufficient grounds. Similarly, James gives the _Enterprise_ 123 men. Each side will be considered authority for its own force and loss.] The _Boxer_ at once hoisted three British ensigns and bore up for the _Enterprise_, then standing in on the starboard tack; but when the two brigs were still 4 miles apart it fell calm. At midday a breeze sprang up from the southwest, giving the American the weather-gage, but the latter manoeuvred for some time to windward to try the comparative rates of sailing of the vessels. At 3 P.M. Lieutenant Burrows hoisted three ensigns, shortened sail, and edged away toward the enemy, who came gallantly on. Captain Blyth had nailed his colors to the mast, telling his men they should never be struck while he had life in his body. [Footnote: "Naval Chronicle," vol. xxxii, p. 462.] Both crews cheered loudly as they neared each other, and at 3.15, the two brigs being on the starboard tack not a half pistol-shot apart, they opened fire, the American using the port, and the English the starboard, battery. Both broadsides were very destructive, each of the commanders falling at the very beginning of the action. Captain Blyth was struck by an eighteen-pound shot while he was standing on the quarter-deck; it passed completely through his body, shattering his left arm and killing him on the spot. The command, thereupon, devolved on Lieutenant David McCreery. At almost the same time his equally gallant antagonist fell. Lieutenant Burrows, while encouraging his men, laid hold of a gun-tackle fall to help the crew of a carronade run out the gun; in doing so he raised one leg against the bulwark, when a canister shot struck his thigh, glancing into his body and inflicting a fearful wound. [Footnote: Cooper, "Naval History," vol. ii, p. 259.] In spite of the pain he refused to be carried below, and lay on the deck, crying out that the colors must never be struck. Lieutenant Edward McCall now took command. At 3.30 the _Enterprise_ ranged ahead, rounded to on the starboard tack, and raked the _Boxer_ with the starboard guns. At 3.35 the _Boxer_ lost her main-top-mast and top-sail yard, but her crew still kept up the fight bravely, with the exception of four men who deserted their quarters and were afterward court-martialed for cowardice. [Footnote: Minutes of court-martial held aboard H.M.S. _Surprise_, January 8, 1814.] The _Enterprise_ now set her fore-sail and took position on the enemy's starboard bow, delivering raking fires; and at 3.45 the latter surrendered, when entirely unmanageable and defenceless. Lieutenant Burrows would not go below until he had received the sword of his adversary, when he exclaimed, "I am satisfied, I die contented."

Both brigs had suffered severely, especially the _Boxer_, which had been hulled repeatedly, had three eighteen-pound shot through her foremast, her top-gallant forecastle almost cut away, and several of her guns dismounted. Three men were killed and seventeen wounded, four mortally. The _Enterprise_ had been hulled by one round and many grape; one 18-pound ball had gone through her foremast, and another through her main-mast, and she was much cut up aloft. Two of her men were killed and ten wounded, two of them (her commander and Midshipman Kervin Waters) mortally. The British court-martial attributed the defeat of the _Boxer_ "to a superiority in the enemy's force, principally in the number of men, as well as to a greater degree of skill in the direction of her fire, and to the destructive effects of the first broadside." But the main element was the superiority in force, the difference in loss being very nearly proportional to it; both sides fought with equal bravery and equal skill. This fact was appreciated by the victors, for at a naval dinner given in New York shortly afterward, one of the toasts offered was: "The crew of the _Boxer_; enemies by law, but by gallantry brothers." The two commanders were both buried at Portland, with all the honors of war. The conduct of Lieutenant Burrows needs no comment. He was an officer greatly beloved and respected in the service. Captain Blyth, on the other side, had not only shown himself on many occasions to be a man of distinguished personal courage, but was equally noted for his gentleness and humanity. He had been one of Captain Lawrence's pall-bearers, and but a month previous to his death had received a public note of thanks from an American colonel, for an act of great kindness and courtesy. [Footnote: "Naval Chronicle," xxxii, 466.]

The _Enterprise_, under Lieut.-Com. Renshaw, now cruised off the southern coast, where she made several captures. One of them was a heavy British privateer, the _Mars_, of 14 long nines and 75 men, which struck after receiving a broadside that killed and wounded 4 of her crew. The _Enterprise_ was chased by frigates on several occasions; being once forced to throw overboard all her guns but two, and escaping only by a shift in the wind. Afterward, as she was unfit to cruise, she was made a guard-ship at Charlestown; for the same reason the _Boxer_ was not purchased into the service.

On October 4th some volunteers from the Newport flotilla captured, by boarding, the British privateer _Dart_, [Footnote: Letter of Mr. Joseph Nicholson, Oct. 5, 1813.] after a short struggle in which two of the assailants were wounded and several of the privateersmen, including the first officer, were killed.

On December 4th, Commodore Rodgers, still in command of the _President_, sailed again from Providence, Rhode Island. On the 25th, in lat. 19° N. and long. 35° W., the _President_, during the night, fell in with two frigates, and came so close that the head-most fired at her, when she made off. These were thought to be British, but were in reality the two French 40-gun frigates _Nymphe_ and _Meduse_, one month out of Brest. After this little encounter Rodgers headed toward the Barbadoes, and cruised to windward of them.

On the whole the ocean warfare of 1813 was decidedly in favor of the British, except during the first few months. The _Hornet's_ fight with the _Peacock_ was an action similar to those that took place in 1812, and the cruise of Porter was unique in our annals, both for the audacity with which it was planned, and the success with which it was executed. Even later in the year the _Argus_ and the _President_ made bold cruises in sight of the British coasts, the former working great havoc among the merchant-men. But by that time the tide had turned strongly in favor of our enemies. From the beginning of summer the blockade was kept up so strictly that it was with difficulty any of our vessels broke through it; they were either chased back or captured. In the three actions that occurred, the British showed themselves markedly superior in two, and in the third the combatants fought equally well, the result being fairly decided by the fuller crew and slightly heavier metal of the _Enterprise_. The gun-boats, to which many had looked for harbor defence, proved nearly useless, and were beaten off with ease whenever they made an attack.

The lessons taught by all this were the usual ones. Lawrence's victory in the _Hornet_ showed the superiority of a properly trained crew to one that had not been properly trained; and his defeat in the _Chesapeake_ pointed exactly the same way, demonstrating in addition the folly of taking a raw levy out of port, and, before they have had the slightest chance of getting seasoned, pitting them against skilled veterans. The victory of the _Enterprise_ showed the wisdom of having the odds in men and metal in our favor, when our antagonist was otherwise our equal; it proved, what hardly needed proving, that, whenever possible, a ship should be so constructed as to be superior in force to the foes it would be likely to meet. As far as the capture of the _Argus_ showed any thing, it was the advantage of heavy metal and the absolute need that a crew should fight with pluck. The failure of the gun-boats _ought_ to have taught the lesson (though it did not) that too great economy in providing the means of defence may prove very expensive in the end, and that good officers and men are powerless when embarked in worthless vessels. A similar point was emphasized by the strictness of the blockade, and the great inconvenience it caused; namely, that we ought to have had ships powerful enough to break it.

We had certainly lost ground during this year; fortunately we regained it during the next two.

BRITISH VESSELS SUNK OR TAKEN.

Name. Guns. Tonnage. _Peacock_ 20 477 _Boxer_ 14 181 _Highflyer_ 6 96 ___ ____ 40 754

AMERICAN VESSELS SUNK OR TAKEN.

Name. Guns. Tonnage. _Chesapeake_ 50 1,265 _Argus_ 20 298 _Viper_ 10 148 ___ _____ 80 1,711

VESSELS BUILT OR PURCHASED.

Name. Rig. Guns. Tonnage. Where Built. Cost. _Rattlesnake_ Brig 14 278 Medford, Pa. $18,000 _Alligator_ Schooner 4 80 _Asp_ Sloop 3 56 2,600

PRIZES MADE.

Name of Ship. No. of Prizes. _President_ 13 _Congress_ 4 _Chesapeake_ 6 _Essex_ 14 _Hornet_ 3 _Argus_ 21 Small craft 18 ___ 79