On the Lakes 189 



that were actually taken out of them, not including 

 the dead. Even misstating Downie's force in guns, 

 underestimating the number of his men, and leav 

 ing out two of his gunboats, did not content James ; 

 and to make the figures show a proper disproportion, 

 he says (Vol. VI, p. 504) that he shall exclude the 

 Finch from the estimate, because she grounded, and 

 half of the gunboats, because he does not think they 

 acted bravely. Even were these assertions true, it 

 would be quite as logical for an American writer to 

 put the Chesapeake' s crew down as only 200, and say 

 he should exclude the other men from the estimate 

 because they flinched; and to exclude all the guns 

 that were disabled by shot, would be no worse than 

 to exclude the Finch. James' manipulation of the 

 figures is a really curious piece of audacity. Nat 

 urally, subsequent British historians have followed 

 him without inquiry. James' account of this battle, 

 alone, amply justifies our rejecting his narrative en 

 tirely, as far as affairs on the lakes go, whenever 

 it conflicts with any other statement, British or 

 American. Even when it does not conflict, it must 

 be followed with extreme caution, for whenever he 

 goes into figures the only thing certain about them 

 is that they are wrong. He gives no details at all 

 of most of the general actions. Of these, however, 

 we already possess excellent accounts, the best being 

 those in the "Manual of Naval Tactics," by Com 

 mander J. H. Ward, U. S. N. (1859), and in Los- 

 sing's "Field-Book of the War of 1812," and 

 Cooper's "Naval History." The chief difficulty oc- 



