The Battle of New Orleans 285 



not be said that the British showed any especial 

 courage in beginning the fight; it was more prop- 

 erly to be called ignorance. After the fight was once 

 begun they certainly acted very bravely, and, in 

 particular, the desperate nature of the Frolic's de- 

 fence has never been surpassed. 



But admitting this is a very different thing from 

 admitting that the British fought more bravely than 

 their foes; the combatants were about on a par in 

 this respect. The Americans, it seems to me, were 

 always to the full as ready to engage as their an- 

 tagonists were; on each side there were few over- 

 cautious men, such as Commodore Rodgers and Sir 

 George Collier, the opposing captains on Lake On- 

 tario, the commander of the Bonne Citoyenne, and 

 perhaps Commodore Decatur, but as a rule either 

 side jumped at the chance of a fight. The differ- 

 ence in tactics was one of skill and common sense, 

 not one of timidity. The United States did not 

 "avoid close action" from over-caution, but simply 

 to take advantage of her opponent's rashness. 

 Hull's approach was as bold as it was skilful; had 

 the opponent to leeward been the Endymion instead 

 of the Guerriere, her 24-pounders would not have 

 saved her from the fate that overtook the latter. 

 Throughout the war I think that the Americans 

 were as bold in beginning action, and as stubborn 

 in continuing it, as were their foes although no 



