46 Naval War of 1812 



certainly wrong, for example, in ascribing the loss 

 of the Chesapeake solely to accident, that of the 

 Argus solely to her inferiority in force, and so on. 

 His disposition to praise all the American com 

 manders may be generous, but is nevertheless un 

 just. If Decatur's surrender of the President is at 

 least impliedly praised, then Porter's defence of the 

 Essex" can hardly receive its just award. There is 

 no weight in the commendation bestowed upon Hull, 

 if commendation, the same in kind though less in 

 degree, is bestowed upon Rodgers. It is a great pity 

 that Cooper did not write a criticism on James, for 

 no one could have done it more thoroughly. But 

 he never mentions him, except once in speaking of 

 Barclay's fleet. In all probability this silence arose 

 from sheer contempt, and the certainty that most of 

 James' remarks were false; but the effect was that 

 very many foreigners believe him to have shirked 

 the subject. He rarely gives any data by which the 

 statements of James can be disproved, and it is for 

 this reason that I have been obliged to criticise the 

 latter's work very fully. Many of James' remarks, 

 however, defy criticism from their random nature, 

 as when he states that American midshipmen were 

 chiefly masters and mates of merchantmen, and does 

 not give a single proof to support the assertion. It 

 would be nearly as true to assert that the British 

 midshipmen were for the most part ex-members of 

 the prize-ring, and as much labor would be needed 

 to disprove it. In other instances it is quite enough 

 to let his words speak for themselves, as where he 



