The Naval War of 1812 Part 15

But in the action with the Java it seems to me that he is mistaken. He has here followed the British accounts; but they are contradicted by the American authorities, and besides have a very improbable look. When the Const.i.tution came round for the second time, on the port tack, James declares the Java pa.s.sed directly across her stern, almost touching, but that the British crew, overcome by astonishment or awe, did not fire a shot; and that shortly afterward the manoeuvre was repeated. When this incident is said to have occurred the Java's crew had been hard at work fighting the guns for half an hour, and they continued for an hour and a half afterward; it is impossible to believe that they would have foreborne to fire more than one gun when in such a superb position for inflicting damage. Even had the men been struck with temporary lunacy the officers alone would have fired some of the guns. Moreover, if the courses of the vessels were such as indicated on Professor Soley's diagram the Java would herself have been previously exposed to a terrible raking fire, which was not the case. So the alleged manoeuvres have, per se, a decidedly apocryphal look; and besides they are flatly contradicted by the American accounts which state distinctly that the Java remained to windward in every portion of the fight. On this same tack Professor Soley represents the Java as forereaching on the Const.i.tution; I have reversed this. At this time the Java had been much cut up in her rigging and aloft generally, while the Const.i.tution had set much additional sail, and in consequence the latter forged ahead and wore in the smoke unperceived. When the s.h.i.+ps came foul Professor Soley has drawn the Const.i.tution in a position in which she would receive a most destructive stern rake from her antagonist's whole broadside. The positions could not have been as there represented. The Java's bowsprit came foul in the Const.i.tution's mizzen rigging and as the latter forged ahead she pulled the former gradually round till when they separated the s.h.i.+ps were in a head and stern line. Commodore Bainbridge, as he particularly says, at once "kept away to avoid being raked," while the loss of the head-sails aboard the Java would cause the latter to come up in the wind, and the two s.h.i.+ps would again be running parallel, with the American to leeward. I have already discussed fully the reasons for rejecting in this instance the British report of their own force and loss. This was the last defeat that the British officially reported; the admiralty were smarting with the sting of successive disasters and anxious at all costs to put the best possible face on affairs (as witness Mr. Croker's response to Lord Dundonald's speech in the House). There is every reason for believing that in this case the reports were garbled; exactly as at a later date the official correspondence preceding the terrible disasters at Cabul was tampered with before being put before the public (see McCarthy's "History of our Own Times").

It is difficult to draw a diagram of the action between the Hornet and Peac.o.c.k, although it was so short, the accounts contradicting one another as to which s.h.i.+p was to windward and which on the "larboard tack;" and I do not know if I have correctly represented the position of the combatants at the close of the engagement. Lieutenant Conner reported the number of men aboard the Hornet fit for duty as 135; Lawrence says she had 8 absent in a prize and 7 too sick to be at quarters. This would make an original complement of 150, and tallies exactly with the number of men left on the Hornet after the action was over, as mentioned by Lawrence in his account of the total number of souls aboard. The log-book of the Hornet just before starting on her cruise, states her entire complement as 158; but 4 of these were sick and left behind. There is still a discrepancy of 4 men, but during the course of the cruise nothing would be more likely than that four men should be gotten rid of, either by sickness, desertion, or dismissal. At any rate the discrepancy is very trivial. In her last cruise, as I have elsewhere said, I have probably overestimated the number of the Hornet's crew; this seems especially likely when it is remembered that toward the close of the war our vessels left port with fewer supernumeraries aboard than earlier in the contest. If such is the case, the Hornet and Penguin were of almost exactly equal force.

My own comments upon the causes of our success, upon the various historians of the war, etc., are so similar to those of Professor Soley, that I almost feel as if I had been guilty of plagiarism; yet I never saw his writings till half an hour ago. But in commenting on the actions of 1812, I think the Professor has laid too much stress on the difference in "dash" between the combatants. The Wasp bore down with perfect confidence to engage an equal foe; and the Hornet could not tell till the Peac.o.c.k opened fire that the latter was inferior in force, and moreover fought in sight of another hostile vessel. In the action with the Guerriere it was Hull and not Dacres who acted boldly, the Englishman delaying the combat and trying to keep it at long range for some time. In this fight it must be remembered that neither foe knew the exact force of the other until the close work began; then, it is true, Dacres fought most bravely. So with the Macedonian; James particularly says that she did not know the force of her foe, and was confident of victory. The Java, however, must have known that she was to engage a superior force. In neither of the first two frigate actions did the Americans have a chance to display any courage in the actual fighting, the victory was won with such ease. But in each case they entered as bravely, although by no means as rashly or foolishly, into the fight as their antagonists did. It must always be remembered that until this time it was by no means proved that 24-pounders were better guns than 18's to put on frigates; exactly as at a little later date it was vigorously contended that 42-pounders were no more effective guns for two-deckers than 32-pounders were. Till 1812 there had been no experience to justify the theory that the 24-pounder was the better gun. So that in the first five actions it cannot be said that the British showed any especial courage in beginning the fight; it was more properly 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 defence has never been surpa.s.sed.

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 antagonists were; on each side there were few over-cautious men, such as Commodore Rodgers and Sir George Collier, the opposing captains on Lake Ontario, the commander of the Bonne Citoyenne, and perhaps Commodore Decatur, but as a rule either side jumped at the chance of a fight. The difference 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 more so. Neither side can claim any superiority on the average, though each can in individual cases, as regards courage. Foolhardiness does not imply bravery. A prize-fighter who refused to use his guard would be looked upon as exceptionally brainless, not as exceptionally brave; yet such a case is almost exactly parallel to that of the captain of the Macedonian.

Appendix D

In the "Historical Register of the United States" (Edited by T. H. Palmer, Philadelphia, 1814), vol. 1 p. 105 (State Papers), is a letter from Lieut. L. H. Babbitt to Master-commandant Wm. U. Crane, both of the Nautilus, dated Sept. 13, 1812, in which he says that of the six men imprisoned by the British on suspicion of being of English birth, four were native-born Americans, and two naturalized citizens. He also gives a list of six men who deserted, and entered on the Shannon, of whom two were American born-the birthplaces of the four others not being given. Adding these last, we still have but six men as the number of British aboard the Nautilus, It is thus seen that the crack frigate Shannon had American deserters aboard her-although these probably formed a merely trifling faction of her crew, as did the British deserters aboard the crack frigate Const.i.tution.

On p. 108, is a letter of Dec. 17, 1812, from Geo. S. Wise, purser of the Wasp, stating that twelve of that s.h.i.+p's crew had been detained "under the pretence of their being British subjects"; so that nine per cent. of her crew may have been British-or the proportion may have been very much smaller.

On p. 117, is a letter of Jan. 14, 1813, from Commodore J. Rodgers, in which he states that he encloses the muster-rolls of H. B. M. s.h.i.+ps, Moselle and Sappho, taken out of the captured packet Swallow; and that these muster-rolls show that in August 1812, one eighth of the crews of the Moselle and Sappho, was composed of Americans.

These various letters thus support strongly the conclusions reached on a former page as to the proportion of British deserters on American vessels.

In "A Biographical Memoir of the late Commodore Joshua Barney, from Autographical Notes and Journals" (Edited by Mary Barney, Boston, 1832), on pages 263, and 315, are descriptions of the flotilla destroyed in the Patuxent. It consisted of one gun-boat, carrying a long 24; one cutter, carrying a long 18, a columbiad 18, and four 9-pound carronades, and thirteen row barges, each carrying a long 18 or 12 in the bow, with a 32-pound or 18-pound carronade in the stern. On p. 256, Barney's force in St. Leonard's creek, is described as consisting of one sloop, two gun-boats, and thirteen barges, with in all somewhat over 500 men; and it is claimed that the flotilla drove away the blockading frigates, entirely unaided; the infantry force on sh.o.r.e rendering no a.s.sistance. The work is of some value, as showing that James had more than doubled the size, and almost doubled the strength, of Barney's various gun-boats.

It may be mentioned that on p. 108, Commodore Barney describes the Dutch-American frigate South Carolina, which carried a crew of 550 men, and was armed with 28 long 42's on the maindeck, and 12 long 12's on the spardeck. She was far heavier than any of our 44-gun frigates of 1812, and an overmatch for anything under the rank of a 74. This gives further emphasis to what I have already stated-that the distinguis.h.i.+ng feature of the war of 1812, is not the introduction of the heavy frigate, for heavy frigates had been in use among various nations for thirty years previously, but the fact that for the first time the heavy frigate was used to the best possible advantage.

Appendix E

In the last edition of James' "Naval History of Great Britain," published in London, in 1886, by Richard Bentley & Son, there is an appendix by Mr. H. T. Powell, devoted to the war of 1812, mainly to my account thereof.

Mr. Powell begins by stating with naf solemnity that "most British readers will be surprised to learn that, notwithstanding the infinite pains taken by William James to render his history a monument of accuracy, and notwithstanding the exposure he brought upon contemporary misstatements, yet to this day the Americans still dispute his facts." It is difficult to discuss seriously any question with a man capable of writing down in good faith such a sentence as the above. James (unlike Brenton and Cooper) knew perfectly well how to be accurate; but if Mr. Powell will read the comments on his accounts which I have appended to the description of almost every battle, he will see that James stands convicted beyond possibility of doubt, not merely of occasional inaccuracies or errors, but of the systematic, malicious, and continuous practice of every known form of wilful misstatement, from the suppression of the truth and the suggestion of the false to the lie direct. To a man of his character the temptation was irresistible; for when he came to our naval war, he had to appear as the champion of the beaten side, and to explain away defeat instead of chronicling victory. The contemporary American writers were quite as boastful and untruthful. No honorable American should at this day endorse their statements; and similarly, no reputable Englishman should permit his name to be a.s.sociated in any way with James' book without explicitly disclaiming all share in, or sympathy with, its scurrilous mendacity.

Mr. Powell's efforts to controvert my statements can be disposed of in short order. He first endeavors to prove that James was right about the tonnage of the s.h.i.+ps; but all that he does is to show that his author gave for the English frigates and sloops the correct tonnage by English and French rules. This I never for a moment disputed. What I said was that the comparative tonnage of the various pairs of combatants as given by James was all wrong; and this Mr. Powell does not even discuss. James applied one system correctly to the English vessels; but he applied quite another to the American (especially on the lakes). Mr. Powell actually quotes Admiral Chads as a witness, because he says that his father considered James' account of the Java's fight accurate; if he wishes such testimony, I can produce many relatives of the Perrys, Porters, and Rodgers of 1812, who insist that I have done much less than justice to the American side. He says I pa.s.sed over silently James' schedule of dimensions of the frigates and sloops. This is a mistake; I showed by the testimony of Captains Biddle and Warrington and Lieutenant Hoffman that his comparative measurements (the absolute measurements being of no consequence) for the American and British sloops are all wrong; and the same holds true of the frigates.

Mr. Powell deals with the weight of shot exactly as he does with the tonnage-that is, he seeks to show what the absolute weight of the British shot was; but he does not touch upon the point at issue, the comparative weight of the British and American shot.

When he comes to the lake actions, Mr. Powell is driven to conclude that what I aver must be accurate, because he thinks the Confiance was the size of the General Pike (instead of half as large again; she mounted 30 guns in battery on her main deck, as against the Pike's 26, and stood to the latter as the Constellation did to the Ess.e.x), and because an American writer (very properly) expresses dissatisfaction with Commodore Chauncy! What Mr. Powell thinks this last statement tends to prove would be difficult to say. In the body of my work I go into the minute details of the strength of the combatants in the lake action; I clearly show that James was guilty of gross and wilful falsification of the truth; and no material statement I make can be successfully controverted.

So much for Mr. Powell. But a much higher authority, Mr. Frank Chiswell, has recently published some articles which tend to show that my conclusions as to the tonnage of the sea vessels (not as to the lake vessels, which are taken from different sources) are open to question. In the appendix to my first edition I myself showed that it was quite impossible to reconcile all the different statements; that the most that could be done was to take one method and apply it all through, admitting that even in this way it would be impossible to make all the cases square with one another.

Mr. Chiswell states that "the American tonnage measurements, properly taken, never could give results for frigates varying largely from the English tonnage." But a statement like this is idle; for the answer to the "never could" is that they did. If Mr. Chiswell will turn to James' "Naval Occurrences," he will find the Chesapeake set down as 1,135 tons, and the Macedonian as of 1,081; but in the American Navy lists, which are those I followed, the Chesapeake is put down as of 1,244 tons. A simple application of the rule of three shows that even if I accepted James' figures, I would be obliged to consider the Macedonian as of about 1,185 tons, to make her correspond with the system I had adopted for the American s.h.i.+ps.

But this is not all. James gives the length of the Macedonian as 154 ft. 6 in. In the Navy Department at Was.h.i.+ngton are two plans of the Macedonian. One is dated 1817, and gives her length as 157 ft. 3 in. This difference in measurement would make a difference of 20 odd tons; so that by the American mode she must certainly have been over 1,200 tons, instead of under 1,100, as by the British rules. The second plan in the Navy Department, much more elaborate than the first, is dated 1829, and gives the length as 164 ft.; it is probably this that Emmons and the United States Navy lists have followed-as I did myself in calling the tonnage of the Macedonian 1,325. Since finding the plan of 1817, however, I think it possible that the other refers to the second vessel of the name, which was built in 1832. If this is true, then the Macedonian (as well as the Guerriere and Java) should be put down as about 120 tons less than the measurements given by Emmons and adopted by me; but even if this is so, she must be considered as tonning over 1,200, using the method I have applied to the Chesapeake. Therefore, adopting the same system that I apply to the American 38-gun frigates, the British 38-gun frigates were of over 1,200, not under 1,100, tons.

As for the Cyane, James makes her but 118 ft. and 2 in. long, while the American Peac.o.c.k he puts at 119 ft. 5 in. But Lieut. Hoffman's official report makes the former 123 ft. 3 in., and the plans in the State Department at Was.h.i.+ngton make the latter 117 ft. 11 in. in length. I care nothing for the different methods of measuring different vessels; what I wish to get at is the comparative measurement, and this stands as above. The comparative tonnage is thus the very reverse of that indicated by James' figures.

Finally, as to the brigs, James makes them some ten feet shorter than the American s.h.i.+p-sloops. In the Was.h.i.+ngton archives I can find no plan on record of the measurements of the captured __Epervier_; but in the Navy Department, volume 10, of the "Letters of Master Commandants, 1814," under date of May 12th, is the statement of the Surveyor of the Port of Charleston that she measured 467 tons (in another place it is given as 477). James makes her 388; but as he makes the American Wasp 434, whereas she stands on our list as of 450, the application of the same rule as with the frigates gives us, even taking his own figures, 400 as her tonnage, when measured as our s.h.i.+ps were. But the measurements of the Surveyor of the Port who examined the Epervier are corroborated by the statements of Captain Biddle, who captured her sister brig, the Penguin. Biddle reported that the latter was two feet shorter and a little broader than his own s.h.i.+p, the Hornet, which was of 480 tons. This would correspond almost exactly with the Surveyor's estimate.

It still seems impossible to reconcile all these conflicting statements; but I am inclined to think that, on the whole, in the sea (not the lake) vessels I have put the British tonnage too high. On the scale I have adopted for the American 44-gun and 38-gun frigates and 18-gun sloops like the Hornet and Wasp, the British 38-gun frigates ought to be put down as of a little over 1,200, and the British 18-gun sloops as of between 400 and 450, tons. In other words, of the twelve single-s.h.i.+p actions of the war five, those of the Chesapeake and Shannon, Enterprise and Boxer, Wasp and Frolic, Hornet and Peac.o.c.k, Hornet and Penguin, were between vessels of nearly equal size; in six the American was the superior about in the proportion of five to four (rather more in the case of the frigates, rather less in the case of the brigs); and in one, that of the Argus and Pelican, the British sloop was the bigger, in a somewhat similar ratio.

This correction would be in favor of the British. But in a more important particular I think I have done injustice to the Americans. I should have allowed for the short weight of American metal on the lakes, taking off seven per cent, from the nominal broadsides of Perry and Macdonough; for the American ordnance was of exactly the same quality as that on the ocean vessels, while the British was brought over from England, and must have shown the same superiority that obtained on the sea-going s.h.i.+ps.

Moreover, I am now inclined to believe that both the Guerriere and the Java, which were originally French s.h.i.+ps, still carried French 18's on their main-deck, and that, therefore, about 20 pounds should be added to the broadside weight of metal of each. The American accounts stated this to be the case in both instances; but I paid no heed to them until my attention was called to the fact that the English had captured enormous quant.i.ties of French cannon and shot and certainly used the captured ordnance on some of their s.h.i.+ps.

In writing my history I have had to deal with a ma.s.s of confused and contradictory testimony, which it has sometimes been quite impossible to reconcile, the difficulty being greatly enhanced by the calculated mendacity of James and some others of the earlier writers, both American and British. Often I have had simply to balance probabilities, and choose between two sets of figures, aware that, whichever I chose, much could be said against the choice. It has, therefore, been quite impossible to avoid errors; but I am confident they have been as much in favor of the British as the Americans; and in all important points my statements are substantially accurate.

I do not believe that my final conclusions on the different fights can be disputed. James a.s.serts that the American s.h.i.+ps were officered by cunning cowards, and manned to the extent of half their force in point of effectiveness by renegade British. I show that the percentage of non-American seamen aboard the American s.h.i.+ps was probably but little greater than the percentage of non-British seamen aboard the British s.h.i.+ps; and as for the charges of cowardice, there were but two instances in which it could be fairly urged against a beaten crew-that of the British Epervier and that of the American Argus (for the cases of Sir George Collier, Commodore Rodgers, Chauncy, Yeo, the commander of the Bonne Citoyenne, etc., etc., cannot be considered as coming under this head). James states that there was usually a great superiority of force on the side of the Americans; this is true; but I show that it was not nearly as great as he makes it, and that in dealing with the lake flotillas his figures are absolutely false, to the extent of even reversing the relative strength of the combatants on Lake Champlain, where the Americans won, although with an inferior force. In the one noteworthy British victory, that of the Shannon, all British authors fail to make any allowance for the vital fact that the Shannon's crew had been drilled for seven years, whereas the Chesapeake had an absolutely new crew, and had been out of port just eight hours; yet such a difference in length of drill is more important than disparity in weight of metal.

As a whole, it must be said that both sides showed equal courage and resolution; that the Americans usually possessed the advantage in material force; and that they also showed a decided superiority in fighting skill, notably in marksmans.h.i.+p.

INDEX

Abeille Aboukir Acasta Adams Adams, Chaplain Adams, Lieutenant Adonis Aeolus Aetna Africa Alacrity Albion Alert Alexandria Alfred Alison, Mr. Allen Allen, Lieutenant William Henry Alligator Almy, Sailing-master Thomas C. Alwyn, John C. Ambuscade Amelia American American Revolution American State Papers Angus, Commander S. Annapolis, Maryland Appling, Major Arab Arbuthnot, Captain James Arethuse Argo Argus Ariadne Ariel Armada Armide Armstrong, Lieutenant Arundel, Sailing-master Asp Aspinwall, Lieutenant Atalanta Atlas Austria Avenger Avon Aylwin Ayscough, Sir George Azores

Babbit, Lieutenant L.H.

Badajos Badere Zaffer Bainbridge, Master Commandant Baker, Captain Ballahou Ballard Ballard, Captain Baltic Sea Baltimore, Maryland Barbadoes Barclay, Captain R.H.

Barney, Captain Joshua Barnwell, Sailing-master Barossa Barras, Admiral Barrie, Sir Robert Barry, Captain Bartholomew, Captain Bartlett, Mr.

Ba.s.sett, Sailing-master R.

b.a.s.t.a.r.d, Captain John Bay of Fundy Bayne, Adjutant General E.

Bayonnaise Beale, George, Jr.

Bell, Lieutenant Bellepoule Bellone Belvidera Bentham, Captain George Berceau Beresford Beresford, Captain John Poer Bermuda Biddle, Captain Biddle, Lieutenant Bignall, Lieutenant G.

Bingham, Captain Black Rock Black Snake Bladensburg, Maryland Blake, Mr.

Blakely, Captain Johnston Bland, Francis blockading Blucher, Mr.

Blyth, Captain Samuel Boerstler, Colonel Bonne Citoyenne Boston Boston, Ma.s.sachusetts Boxer Boyce, Lieutenant Boyd, General Boyd, Master's Mate Boyle, Captain Thomas Brailesford, Mids.h.i.+pman Braimer, Captain Brant Breckenbridge, Lieutenant Brenton, Edward P.

Brine, Captain Brock, General Broke, Admiral Philip Vere Brooks, Lieutenant Broom, Lieutenant James Brown, Captain Thomas Brown, General Brown, Lieutenant Bruce, Lieutenant Buchan, Lieutenant Edward Budd, Lieutenant Charles Budd, Lieutenant George Buffalo, New York Bulger, Lieutenant Bulloch, Captain James D.

Bunker Hill, Burleton, Admiral Sir George Burlington, Vermont Burrows Burrows, Lieutenant William Bush, Lieutenant William S.

Byng, Captain Henry D.

Byron, Captain Richard Cabul, Mr. Calder, Sir Robert Caledonia Call, William Campbell, Lieutenant Campbell, Master's Mate J. Camperdown Canada Cape of Good Hope Cape Race Capricieuse Carden, Captain John Surnam Carnation Carolina Carroll, General Carron Carter, Sailing-master Ca.s.sin, Captain Castilian Cathcart, Captain Centipe Ceres Cerf Chads, Lieutenant Henry D. Chameleon Champlin, Sailing-master Stephen Chandeleur Islands Chandler, General Charleston, South Carolina Charwell Chauncy, Commodore Chauncy, Lieutenant Wolcott Chausseur Cherub Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay Chicago, Illinois Childers Chippeway Chippeway Chiswell, Frank Chlorinde Chrystler's Farm Chubb Civil War Claxton, Lieutenant Clement, Sailing-master George Cleopatra Clyde Cochrane, Admiral Sir Alexander c.o.c.kburn, Rear Admiral Codrington, Lord Edward Coffee, General Collier, Sir George Collier, Sir Ralph Columbia Comus Confiance Congress Congress Conklin, Lieutenant A.H.M. Conkling, Lieutenant Conner, Lieutenant Connor, Lieutenant D. Conquest Constellation Const.i.tution Contest Cooper, J. Fenimore Copenhagen Cornick, Lieutenant H.D. Cornwallis Coshnahan, Mids.h.i.+pman Coswell, Lieutenant J.G. Courageous Courier-National Courser c.o.x, W.S. c.o.x, Lieutenant Crab Island Crane, Lieutenant Crane, Master Commandant William V Craney Island Crawford, Minister Creerie, Lieutenant John Croghan, Colonel Croker, Mr. Cuba c.u.mberland Island c.u.mmings, Mids.h.i.+pman J.C. Curlew Curry, Lieutenant Rodger C. Cyane Cyprus

Dacres, Captain James R. Daedalus Daily, Sailing-master Dant Davies, Lieutenant David Dearborn, General Decatur, Stephen Deforest, Mids.h.i.+pman de Gra.s.se, Comte de la Graviere, Admiral Jurien Delaware Bay Denmark Dent, Captain De Ruyter Desiree Despatch De Suffrein Detroit Detroit, Michigan Devastation Diadem d.i.c.kenson, Captain James Dictator Didon Dixon, Sailing-master Dobbs, Captain Doggerbank Dolphin Dover Dougla.s.s, Captain George Dougla.s.s, Lord Howard Downie, Captain George. Downes, Lieutenant Downs, Lieutenant Dragon Drummond Drummond, General Dudley, Mids.h.i.+pman Dundonald, Lord Durham, Admiral

Eagle Earl of Moira Earle, Commodore East Indies Eckford, Henry Edwards, Lieutenant Egyptienne Elliott, Lieutenant Ellis, Captain Emmons, Lieutenant George E. Endymion English Channel Enterprise Epervier Epworth, Captain Erebus Erie Espiegle Ess.e.x Ess.e.x Junior Etoile Eurotas Euryalus Eurydice Evans, Amos A. Everard, Captain Thomas Experiment

Fair American Fairy Falcon, Captain Gordon Thomas Falkiner, Lieutenant False Duck Island Farragut, Admiral David Glasgow Ferris, Sailing-master John D. Finch Finch, Lieutenant Bolton Finnis, Captain Firefly Fischer, Lieutenant Colonel Flambeau Florida Florida Floyd, Captain Robett Forrest, Lieutenant Fort Bowyer Fort Erie Fort George Fort McHenry Fort Mackinaw Fort Meigs Fort St. Philip Fort Stephenson Fort Was.h.i.+ngton Forte Fortune of War Forty Mile Creek 14th Light Dragoons France Franklin Fredrickscoarn Frenchtown French Revolution Frolic Fulton Funk, John Messer Funon

Gaines, General Galatea Gamble, Lieutenant Peter Gamo Garden, Captain S.J. Garland Garland, Lieutenant General Armstrong General Pike Georgia Georgiana Ghent Gibbs, General Glasgow Gloire Gloucester Gordon, Captain James A. Gordon, Lieutenant H.C. Governor Tompkins Grand Banks Graves, Sir Thomas Greene, Captain Pill Barnaby Greenwich Gregory, Lieutenant Francis A. Griffeth, Rear Admiral Growler Guerin, Leon Guerres Maritimes Guerriere Guemere Gunboat #5 Gunboat #23 Gunboat #156 Gunboat #162 Gunboat #163 Gunboat #168 Gypsy

Hamilton Hamilton, Secretary Paul Hampton, General Wade Hampton Roads Hanahett, Captain Hardy, Captain Hardy, Sir Thomas Harrison, General Hart, Mids.h.i.+pman Havannah Hawkins, Captain Richard Hayes, Captain John Head, Captain Michael Hebrus Hector Henderson, Captain Henly, Captain J.D.

Henly, Captain Robert Hermes Hicks, Lieutenant William Highflyer Hilyar, Captain James Hinn, Mr.

Hislop, Lieutenant General History of the British Navy History of the U.S. Navy Hoffman, Lieutenant B.F.

Holdup, Lieutenant Hollaway, Captain Holmes, Captain Honduras Hood, Sir Samuel Hope, Captain Henry Hope, Lieutenant David Hornet Horseshoe Bend Howe, James Hughes, Sit Edward Hull, General Isaac Humbert, General Humble, James Hunt, William H.

Hunter Hurlburt, Mr.

Hutchinson, Lieutenant William Icarus impressment Indefatigable Independence Indian Ocean Indians Inglis, Lieutenant George Ingram, Lieutenant William Insurgente Irvine, Lieutenant Isle-au-noix Italy Izard, General

Jackson, General Andrew Jamaica Plate James, William Ja.s.seur Java Jefferson Jefferson, Thomas John Adams John, Lieutenant Colonel Johnson, Lieutenant Robert Johnson, Sailing-master Johnston, Sailing-master Jones Jones, Captain Jacob Jones, Lieutenant Thomas Catesby Julia Junon Keane, General Kearney. Captain Palmer Kent, Lieutenant Bartholomew Kentucky Kerr, Captain Robert King, Captain King, Lieutenant Kingston Klaeson, Captain LaColle Mill La Diane Lady Gore Lady Murray Lady of the Lake Lady Prevost Lafitte Lake Borgne Lake Champlain Lake Erie Lake Huron Lake Ontario Lamb, Mids.h.i.+pman Lambert, Captain Lambert, General Landon, Captain H. Landrail Lang, Jack Laugharne, T.L.O. Lawrence Lawrence, Captain Leander Lejoille Leopard Les Pet.i.tes Coquilles Levant Linnet Little Belt Lockyer, Captain Loire London Naval Chronicle Long Island Sound Losack, Captain Woodley Lottery Louisiana Low. Lieutenant Ludlow Ludlow, Lieutenant A. Lumly, Captain Lundy's Lane Lynx

McCall, Lieutenant Edward McClintock, Mids.h.i.+pman McClure, General McCreery, Lieutenant David McDonald, Lieutenant Macdonough, Commodore Macedonia McGhie, Lieutenant James McGowan, Mids.h.i.+pman McKay, Charles McKeever, Lieutenant Isaac McKnight, Lieutenant Decatur Macomb, General McPherson, Lieutenant Madison Madison, James Magnet Maine Maitland, Captain Majestic Manly Manners, Captain William Maples, Captain John F Marblehead, Ma.s.sachusetts Mars Marshall, Lieutenant John Martin Mary Maryland Matterface, Lieutenant William Meduse Medway Melville Menelaus Mensing, Commander Adolf Merrimac Meteor Mexico Milan Milbrook Miller, Captain Mills, Colonel Milne, Captain Mindham, William Minerva Minerve Mississippi River Mitch.e.l.l, Colonel Mix, Sailing-master Mobile Point Mohawk Moltke Monk, Sailing-master James Montagu Montgomery Montreal Montresor, Captain Morgan, General Morgan, Major Morris, Captain Charles Moselle Muir, Captain Mulcaster, Captain William Howe, Murray, Colonel J.

Nancy Nantucket Napoleon Narcissus Nautilus Naval Chronicle Naval Gunnery Naval History of Great Britain Naval History of the United States Naval Occurrences Navy Department Nayaden Nazer, Lieutenant Kelly Neale, Lieutenant Nelson, Lord Nereide Nereyda Netly Nettle Neufchatel New Hamps.h.i.+re New Jersey New Orleans New York New York Newark Newcastle Newfoundland Niagara Niagara Nicholson, Lieutenant N.J. Nile's Register Nocton Nonsuch Norman, Lieutenant Charles R. North Point Norwich Nymphe

O'Brien, Mr.

O'Connor, Captain Odenheimer, Lieutenant Ogdensburg Ohio Oliver, Captain R.D.

Oneida Ontario Ordronaux, Captain Orpheus Osgood, Lieutenant Oswego Packenham, General Edward Packet, Lieutenant John H. Paine, Sailing-master Thomas Palunure Palmer, Captain Parker, Captain Parker, George Parker, Lieutenant Parker, Sir Peter Pasley Patterson, Captain Patuxent River Paulding, Admiral Paulding, Mids.h.i.+pman Hiram Peac.o.c.k Peac.o.c.k (British) Peake, William Pech.e.l.l, Captain Pelican Pendleton, Thomas M. Penguin Perry Perry, Captain Oliver H. Pert Peterel Pettigrew, Lieutenant Pettipauge Philadelphia Phillot, Captain Phoebe Phoenix Pictou Piedmontaise Pigot, Captain Pike Pike, Brigadier General Pilot Pique Plantagenet Plattsburg Poictiers Polkinghorne, Lieutenant James Pomona Pomone Popham, Captain Porcupine Porter, Captain David Porto Praya Porto Rico Portsmouth, New Hamps.h.i.+re Portugal Potomac River Powell, H.T. Pratt, Lieutenant Preble President Presque Isle Prevost, Sir George, Primrose Prince Regent Princess Charlotte Pring, Captain Daniel privateers Proctor, Colonel Prometheus Prosperous Prudente Psyche