42 Naval War of 1812 



dently laboriously hunted up his authorities. He has 

 examined the ships' logs, the Admiralty reports, va 

 rious treaties, all the "Gazette" reports, gives very 

 well-chosen extracts, has arranged his work in chron 

 ological order, discriminates between the officers that 

 deserve praise and those that deserve blame, and in 

 fact writes a work which ought to be consulted by 

 every student of naval affairs. But he is unfortu 

 nately afflicted with a hatred toward the Americans 

 that amounts to a monomania. He wishes to make 

 out as strong a case as possible against them. The 

 animus of his work may be gathered from the not 

 over complimentary account of the education of the 

 youthful seafaring American, which can be found in 

 Vol. VI, p. 113, of his "History." On page 153 he 

 asserts that he is an "impartial Historian" ; and about 

 three lines before mentions that "it may suit the 

 Americans to invent any falsehood, no matter how 

 barefaced, to foist a valiant character on them 

 selves." On page 419 he says that Captain Porter 

 is to be believed, "so far as is borne out by proof 

 (the only safe way where an American is con 

 cerned)," which somewhat sweeping denunciation 

 of the veracity of all of Captain Porter's compatriots 

 would seem to indicate that James was not, perhaps, 

 in that dispassionate frame of mind best suited for 

 writing history. That he should be biased against 

 individual captains can be understood, but when he 

 makes rabid onslaughts upon the American people 

 as a whole, he renders it difficult for an American, 

 at any rate, to put implicit credence in him. His 



