' a"^ '^ .<< ?■ * -^^ 
 
 
 
 
 %. 
 
 
 ■^oo^ 
 
 
 
 ,-v ^ ^^ %■' ^%- ^> ^' ^y'^%^\ 
 
 <^ ^ * X -^ A 
 
 
 -^^ 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 <c> 
 
 4 ^ ■» ^r 
 
 
 J-i«^ 
 
 '5/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 ^ -"*. 
 
-^^ 
 
 
 iVJ» 
 
 ^ ^^J^'^^: 
 
 
 « X ♦ ' V 
 
 -7 
 
 ' "-^^f \ 
 
 < •'b: 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 ^ ^z^^''" 
 
 ^. * S ^ ^^0 <- 
 
 \^^«^'' 
 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * oX 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 G^ 
 
 
 X ~NJ-S- ftp..) C' 
 
 ex r 
 
 
 .-.^^ 
 
 
 
 O^^ ^ - c ^ -^ 
 
THE 
 
 BiATTLE OP LAKE ERIE: 
 
 OR 
 
 ANSWERS 
 
 TO 
 
 MESSRS. BURGES, DUER, AND MACKENZIE. 
 
 BY J. FENIMORE COOPER. 
 
 .y^< 
 
 
 ^COOPEHSIpWN^ 
 
 H.&E. PHINNEY 
 1843. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1843, by 
 
 J. FENIMORE COOPER, 
 
 in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States in 
 
 and for the northern district of New York. 
 
 t/ ^ n^ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In his biography of Perry, Graham's Maga- 
 zine, for May and June, 1843, the writer has 
 given his theory of the Battle of Lake Erie, as 
 connected with the controversy that has risen out 
 of it. In the Naval history, that controversy was 
 purposely avoided, as unnecessary to, and unfit 
 for such a work. In this pamphlet, the intention 
 is merely to answer Messrs. Burges, Duer and 
 Mackenzie, all three of whom comment on, and 
 the two last of whom have openly attacked the 
 writer. 
 
 The writer has not sought this discussion. It 
 has been forced on him b}^ his assailants, who 
 must now face the consequences. For years the 
 writer has submitted in comparative silence to a 
 gross injustice, in connection with this matter, not 
 from any want of confidence in the justice of his 
 case or any ability to defend himself, but, because 
 he * bided his time,' knowing, when that should 
 arrive, he had truth to fall back upon. He 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 has seen his own work condemned, and, so far 
 as the pubhc authorities were concerned, excluded 
 from the District School Libraries, and all on ac- 
 count of its supposed frauds in relation to the 
 Battle of Lake Erie ; while, on the other hand, 
 he has heard Capt. Mackenzie's Biography of 
 Perry lauded from one end of the Union to the 
 other, and preferred to that place in the libraries 
 mentioned, from which his own work has been 
 excluded. The day of reckoning has come at 
 length, and the judgment of men will infallibly 
 follow. For the issue, the writer has no fears. 
 Let intelligent men do him the justice to read, 
 and honest men the justice to decide ; this is all 
 
 he asks, or desires. 
 
 J. FENIMORE COOPER. 
 
 Cooperstown^ May^ 16/7i, 1843. 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 Shortly after the appearance of the history of the Navy 
 of the United States, hitter and combined attacks were 
 made on it, principally in connection with the authenticity 
 of its statements concerning the battle of lake Erie. All 
 of these attacks proceeded, so far as I have been able to 
 ascertain, from the friends or connections of the late Com. 
 Perry, It had suited that officer in 1818, to withdraw the 
 eulogium he had bestowed on the conduct of Capt. Elliott, 
 in his official account of 1813, and to substitute in its place, 
 charges against his late second in command accusing him, 
 in substance, of either cowardice or treachery, and asking 
 for a court to investigate the facts. Although the govern- 
 ment has never acted on these charges, it is matter of noto- 
 riety that they have given rise to several distinct contro- 
 versies, of which it is to be hoped that the present will be 
 the last. A brief narrative of the history of these contro- 
 versies will assist the reader in better understanding the 
 subject. 
 
 The battle of Lake Erie was remarkable for a feature 
 that is almost, if not entirely, without example in the annals 
 of naval combats. Although •^he Americans eventually 
 captured every English vessel engaged against them, 
 their own commanding ship struck her colors. This 
 circumstance naturally gave rise to some feeling, and it is 
 in proof that certain of the officers of this vessel were 
 early engaged in looking up evidence to criminate Capt. 
 Elliott, to whose conduct they ascribed their own disaster. 
 Capt. Perry had brought with him from Rhode Island, 
 several officers, natives of that state, or young men who had 
 commenced their naval career under his immediate auspi- 
 1* 
 
6 , BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 ces, while in command of the flotilla on that coast. These 
 gentlemen, without an exception I believe, took sides with 
 their chief, in the subsequent dispute, and the earliest evi- 
 dence I can find of any thing like a disposition to arraign 
 Capt. Elliott, is connected with one of these oflScers. Dr. 
 Usher Parsons, then a surgeon's mate on board the Law- 
 rence, the vessel originally commanded by Capt. Perry, 
 and which struck to the enemy after he had left to go on 
 board the Niagara, Capt. Elliott, M^ent to the latter vessel 
 " the second day after the action" to dress the wounds ; her 
 own surgeon Dr. Barton being too ill at the time to attend 
 to the duty. On this occasion Dr. Parsons, agreeably to 
 his own statement, questioned some of the wounded men 
 as to the time when they were hurt — whether it were be- 
 fore, or after Capt. Perry reached their brig. As it has 
 been alleged that Capt. Elliott betrayed a consciousness 
 of guilt, by his moving so early in the matter, this cir- 
 cumstance becomes of some importance, since no act of 
 Capt. Elliott's, in connection with the imputation on his 
 conduct, is proved to have taken place at a date earlier 
 than Sept. 17, or a laeclc after the battle. 
 
 It is thus substantially shown that the enemies of Capt. 
 Elliott, first took ground in this controversy ; or, at least, 
 it is not proved, as has been asserted, that Capt. Elliot did. 
 On this occasion, several letters were written, by difterent 
 officers, principally if not all of the Niagara, in justifica- 
 tion of the conduct of Capt. Elliott, most of which appeared 
 in the journals of the vicinity of Lake Erie. Capt. Perry 
 took no part against his subordinate, but, on the contrary, 
 in answer to an application from Capt. Elliott, he wrote 
 that officer a letter of the date of Sept. 18th, the battle having 
 been fought on the 10th, expressing his indignation that 
 any rumors to his prejudice should have been in circula- 
 tion. There is no reason to think that Capt. Perry, at 
 that time, gave any other opinion in public. This may be 
 termed the first controversy, though, on the part of the ene- 
 mies of Capt. Elliott, little was openly promulgated to the 
 world. In a short time, with the exception of a few on the 
 spot, the matter was in a great degree forgotten. 
 
 In 1815, however, the papers of this country published 
 the sentence of the Court Martial which had sat on Capt. 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 7 
 
 Barclay, his officers and crew, for the defeat. Owing to 
 the carlessness with wliich statements are made in the 
 journals of this country, some observations from a London 
 print, that accompanied the finding of the court, were pub- 
 lished as forming part of the sentence, which observations, 
 among other errors and loose statements, asserted that the 
 Niagara "had not been eno^affcd,*' and "was makinar 
 away, when Capt. Perry reached her. A Court of In- 
 quiry was sitting in the Harbor of New York, when this 
 supposed statement of the British court first appeared in 
 America, and Capt. EHiott immediately asked that the facts 
 might be investigated. This was done, such witnesses 
 being made use of, as the vessels present at New York, a 
 considerable force, could furnish. Seven witnesses were 
 examined, two of the lieutenants of the Lawrence, and five 
 officers of the Niagara ; the result being an honorable ac- 
 quittal of Capt. Elliott. The evidence before this court 
 was conflicting, both as to distances and as to time, but all 
 united in saying that the Niagara at no time was "making 
 away." 
 
 From 1815 to 1818, nothing public appears to have oc- 
 curred, in connection with this aftair. In the latter year, 
 however, Capt. Elliott wrote to Capt. Perry, stating that he 
 had been informed that the latter had condemned his con- 
 duct on the 10th Sept. 1813, and requiring explanations. 
 By the correspondence which ensued, it would seem that 
 the gentlemen materially distrusted each others account of 
 their respective behavior in the battle. In this correspond- 
 ence Capt. Elliott challenged Capt. Perry, and was told, 
 in ansvver, that the latter had pre|)ared charges agaitJst 
 him, requesting a court for his trial. These charges ap- 
 pear to have been sent, accompanied by a letter to tlie 
 Secretary of the date of August 10th 1818. Along with 
 the charges there appears, also, to have been forwarded 
 affidavits, criminating Capt. Elliott, and signed by Messrs. 
 Parsons, Breese, and Taylor, formerly of the Lawrence, 
 Mr. Turner, commander of the Caledonia, Mr. Stevens, 
 commander of the Trippe, Mr. Champlin, commander of 
 the Scorpion, and Mr. Brownell of the Ariel; all of which 
 were vessels engaged in the action. Of these witnesses, 
 it may be well to say, that Messrs. Parsons, Breese, Tay- 
 
8 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 lor, Champlin and Brownell, all appear to have been 
 jiatives of Rhode Island, and to have accompanied Capt. 
 Perry when he left that state ; and Mr. Turner, though a 
 native of New York, had been a resident of Rhode Island! 
 from childhood, and was almost identified with the family 
 of Perry by long and intimate association. Mr. Stevens 
 was a native of Carolina, and had no other connection with 
 his commander than grew out of his ordinary service ; 
 though it is known that he quitted Capt. Elliott's brig a 
 few days before the battle, on account of a misunderstand- 
 ing, and that he subsequently believed that his own name i 
 was left out of the official account of the action, in conse- 
 quence of the representations of the latter. Mr. Champlin, 
 I am told, is a relation of Commodore Perry's widow. — 
 These facts are not mentioned with a design to impute 
 intentional mistatements to any of the witnesses, tiiough 
 every man in the least acquainted with human nature, 
 must see that, in a question of opinions, circumstances of 
 this sort may very well influence the mind, without the 
 party himself being conscious by what his judgment is 
 swayed. When it is seen, as I shall presently show, that 
 one of the controversialists, Mr. Tristam Surges, modestly 
 claims the Baltic of Lake Erie "as a part of the maritime 
 affairs of Rhode Island,"* tlie fact obtains peculiar signifi- 
 cance. One thing is certain ; no officer out of the Law- 
 rence, Mr. Stevens excepted, is found to give testimony 
 against Capt. Elliott, unless a native, or a resident of that 
 State, and more th in usually connected with his com- 
 mander. 
 
 The government did not act on Captain Perry's charg- 
 es. Two stories are in circulation concerning their fate. 
 According to one, the Secretary being absent, these charges 
 were sent to the President, who immediately consulted 
 Com. Decatur on the subject. Com. Decatur was an in- 
 timate friend of Capt. Perry's, and he is said to have depre- 
 cated the course of the latter, and to have beo'cred the charo-- 
 es, in order to gam tune to advise his friend to abandon 
 a course which brought him so obviously in contradiction 
 with himself. The request was granted, and the charges 
 slumbered in Com. Decatur's keeping, until that officer's 
 death. This statement is denied, on the other hand. It 
 
 * See Burges's Lectures, Preface page 5 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. . 9 
 
 is said that the charges never were withdrawn by any one, 
 though it is admitted that nothing official was ever done 
 with them. That Capt Perry, on quitting the country in 
 his last cruise, left copies of his charges, with the accom- 
 paning affidavits, in Com. Decatur's keeping, to repel any 
 attack that might proceed from Capt. Elliott in his absence, 
 and that these copies were in tlie hands of Com. Decatur, 
 at his death. The difference is not very material, and it is 
 quite possible that both statements may be true. It seems 
 to be eertain that Capt. Perry directed such copies to be 
 transmitted to Com. Decatur for the purpose declared, and 
 it is by no means improbable that Decatur may have 
 thought it wisest to conceal his previous possession of the 
 originals. Of the truth, I profess to know no more. 
 
 In the unfortunate meeting when Com. Decatur fell, 
 Capt. Elliott acted as the friend of Com. Barron. This 
 occurred in March, 1820. Perry had died in August, 
 1819. Among the papers of Decatur were found the orig- 
 inal charges of Perry, against Capt. Elliott, or their copies, 
 or both, as the case may have been, together with the af- 
 fidavits. A few months later, when time had been given to 
 examine the papers, these charges and affidavits were 
 first laid before the world, by a private publication at Wash- 
 ington, in consequence of his connection with the recent 
 duel, as is affirmed by Com. Elliott. Of this fact, 1 pro- 
 fess to know nothing, beyond the manner of the publica- 
 tion. This appeal to the public brought replies ; new 
 questions first appeared in the affidavits, and rebutting tes- 
 timony was obtained by Capt. Elliott to meet the new 
 charges. Nearly all the testimony which has appeared in 
 the case, that had not been brought out in the discussion 
 of 1813, or the court of 1815, seems to have been pro- 
 duced in 1820-21, either in the affidavits accompanying 
 the charges, or in the letters or affidavits that succeeded 
 their publication. 
 
 The subject attracted a good deal of attention in the 
 naval circles, in 1821, but did not penetrate the public 
 mind. It soon died away, and may be said to have lain 
 dormant until it was revived, in 1834, in consequence of 
 the afi'air of the figure head. The assault on Capt. El- 
 liott, at that time, was a political attack, that was charac- 
 
10 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 terized by the malignancy, disregard of principle, and of 
 any thing else but the end in view, which are usual on 
 such occasions. It dragged into notice all the testimony 
 that could be collected against that gentleman, keeping 
 out of sight, with sedulous care, every thing that had been 
 advanced in his favor. It was an attack marked by prof- 
 ligacy, and in the main sustained by political hacks. With 
 the historian, it ought not to weigh a feather. I am not 
 aware, that any personal friend of the late Com Perry 
 had any agency in this rally of 1834. One of its effects, | 
 however, was to produce a biography of Com. Elliott, 
 which made its appearance in 1835. 
 
 The biography of Com. Elliott is a work of considera- 
 ble ingenuity, but I am far from subscribing to all its con- 
 clusions. It is the reasoning of a lawyer, rather than of a 
 seaman, and is written too much in the feeling of partisan- 
 ship not to be obnoxious to criticism. Still it is infinitely 
 fairer in spirit, more logical, and every way more lespect- 
 able, than either of the works to which it is my duty now 
 to reply. It has one merit, that is altogether wanting to 
 ray adversaries ; it puts both sides of the question fairly 
 before the reader, giving the testimony of both sides, and 
 leaving its own reasoning exposed to the just inferences of 
 the hostile evidence. This simple and manly course is im- 
 itated by none of those who have assailed Capt. Elliott. 
 The last have had the hardihood to suppose the public 
 might be hoodwinked in an affair of this importance, and 
 have in effect given the testimony of only their own side 
 of the case. 
 
 My own work was published in the spring of 1839. The 
 part which relates to the Battle of Lake Erie, was written 
 after a long and critical examination of all the evidence I 
 could obtain, and with a firm conviction that the contro- 
 versy that had grown up out of it, was not in a fit state to 
 pass into history. This was all I had to decide, and hav- 
 ing made up my mind to this one fact, all I had to do was 
 to follow the official account, and to give to the world those 
 statements which I believed to be true, while I avoided 
 touching on any that I thought would admit of doubt This 
 course was rigidly followed, and it is now my task to jus- 
 . tify what I have done, while I expose the errors, to use a 
 mild term, of those who have gainsayed it. 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 11 
 
 The first attack on the History was made by an'article 
 in the Commercial Advertiser, which ran throusjh four num- 
 bers, and for which, as it contained gross personal imputa- 
 tions, I prosecuted the editor for a libel. It is now under- 
 stood that this article was written by Mr. William A. Duer, 
 late President of Columbia College. 
 
 i A review in the North American followed, which assailed 
 the account of the Battle of Lake Erie, making it a partic- 
 ular charge against the historian that he did not distinctly 
 state that the English squadron was superior in force to the 
 American, because the former carried 63 and the latter on- 
 ly 54 guns. As this article has been admitted to be the 
 work of Capt. Slidell Mackenzie, of the Navy, it becomes 
 identified, in a great degree, with the subsequent labors of 
 the same gentleman, on this subject. 
 
 A lecture delivered before the Historical Society of Rhode 
 Island, by Mr. Tristam Burges, followed up the blow. 
 This lecture had been delivered some time previously, and 
 of course contained no direct allusion to the History ; but it 
 was given to the world with loud announcements of the 
 withering effect it was to produce on that History, and, 
 when published, its logic, facts and diagrams were virtual- 
 ly proclaimed to be unanswerable ; more especially by the 
 New-York American, New-York Commercial Advertiser, 
 and one or two others of characters too questionable, and 
 of reasoning powers too feeble to require naming, It now 
 remains to see how far these eulogiums were merited. 'Not 
 satisfied with these attacks and replies, some of which had 
 a specific gravity, that aided in producing their own fall, 
 Capt. Mackenzie made a fresh assault, in a work called a 
 Biography of Com. Perry. This book, he avows in the 
 preface, was written at the request of some of Com. Per- 
 ry *s friends, as an answer to my attempts to lessen the fame 
 of that distinguished officer. I greatly regret that such 
 an answer to any such imaginary attempts on my part, 
 should have been made, for it compels me to expose facts 
 I would willingly suppress, and I entertain no doubt that 
 the friends of Com. Perry will regret it still more, by the 
 time the subject is finally disposed of. 
 
 It may be well, here, to inquire into the situations of 
 the different individuals who have thus been the agents 
 
12 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 of an attempt to bring me and my labors into disrepute with 
 the nation. Mr. Burges is tolerably innocent as respects 
 me, his lecture having been written pretty much to prove 
 that the Battle of Lake Erie was " a part of the maritime 
 affairs of Rhode Island." As my history has no such ob- 
 ject in view, it is not surprising that our accounts conflict a 
 little. This difference compels me to justify my own, by 
 demonstratinor the value of those of the other side. Per- 
 sonally, I know nothing to influence Mr. Burges but the 
 circumstance that he was a Rhode Island man, and that he 
 had given himself so difficult a task. 
 
 Mr. Duer is nearly a stranger to me. His article was 
 written with peculiar malignancy, and is marked by state- 
 ments, misquotations and general features, that v ill compel 
 me to put such a brand on it, that the ex-president will not 
 be desirous of claiming his offspring hereafter. Some per- 
 sons may think it pertinent if I add that Mr. Duer is 
 Mr. Mackenzie's uncle by marriage. 
 
 The agency of Capt. Mackenzie in this affair is probably 
 to be imputed to his connection with the family of Perry, 
 the present Com. M. C. Perry having married his sister. 
 How far such a circumstance would be likely to influence 
 this accurate and logical Historian, would depend on his 
 character, as connected with his general sense of right ; 
 and I shall leave the reader to draw his own inferences, 
 after the testimony which will bear on this gentleman's 
 manner of dealing with facts, shall be laid fairly before 
 him. 
 
 First, then, in reply to the lecture of Mr. Burges: It. 
 is to be presumed that the State of Rhode Island will not 
 defend the literary merit of this very extraordinary produc- 
 tion, of which the very first sentence is so peculiar, that it 
 is welcome to appropriate it to itself also. " It is the pur- 
 pose of the present lecture," commences Mr. Burges " to 
 give a concise narrative of the jleet and battle on Lake 
 Erie." What is meant by a " narrative of a fleet," I am un- 
 able to say, but, as large portions of the explanations of 
 this lecture are utterly unintelligible, it is fair to suppose 
 they refer to this particular branch of the subject. But 
 passing over the poetry of the lecture, which is far from 
 inconsiderable in quantity, and leaving the enigma to be 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 13 
 
 examined as they may arise, let us proceed at once to the 
 material points. I object to Mr. Burges — 
 
 1st. That he assumes general facts in direct opposition 
 to known truths ; 
 
 2. That his witnesses, according to his own showing, 
 contradict each other, on important points ; 
 
 3d. That he sometimes contradicts his own witnesses. 
 
 4th. That his statements are often opposed to the known 
 laws of nature ; and that they involve gross physical im- 
 possibilities. 
 
 If all this be shown, it is fair to presume that the rest of 
 the republic will be ready to inform the State of Rhode 
 Island, that it is welcome to its Lecturer, whatever be the 
 case as it respects its claims to the victory of Lake Erie. 
 
 In his opening remarks, Mr. B urges has the following 
 statements, all of which are opposed to known truths : — 
 
 He says — " in the summer of 1812, Oliver Hazard Per- 
 ry, of Rhode Island, a young man, Captain in the United 
 States Navy, &c." Perry was not made a captain until 
 after the battle of Lake Erie, his commission being dated 
 Sept. 10th 1813, the day of his victory. 
 
 He says, " In the winter of 1812—13 he, (Perry) was or- 
 dered to Lake Erie, to take the command, and provide a 
 fleet for that station." This is said in a connection which 
 means that this order was given to Perry, previously to 
 joining the Lake station, at all. It is an error ; Com. 
 Chauncey assigning the duty on which Perry was sent. 
 
 He says, " The enemy had then (when Perry was sent 
 to Lake Erie) in those waters, two ships, two brigs, &c." 
 It is well known that one of the ships, of a force equalling 
 all the rest of the British vessels, was not ready, or launch- 
 ed, until a short time previously to the battle. 
 
 He says, '* The British had, hy land^ as well as by wa- 
 ter, the entire command of that lake, (Erie)" &c. This 
 is notoriously untrue, the enemy never having command 
 of the south shore of Lake Erie, with the exception of a 
 temporary possession of a portion near the west end. If 
 true. Perry equipped his squadron in what was virtually aa 
 enemy's country ! 
 
 He says, " Every Yankee is an 'axe-man ; and all the 
 companions of Perry were of the full blood ; and the most 
 2 
 
14 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 of them the best of that blood, the Rhode Island stock. — 
 These, (the Yankees who accompanied Perry from New- 
 port) with a few more shipwrights, smiths, caulkers, rig- 
 gers and sail-makers, built and equipped this fleet ; and 
 launched the whole into the harbor of Erie, rigged and 
 ready to sail, in about ninety days after the first blow was 
 struck." Mr. Burges might as well have said that his axe- 
 men built a cathedral in the woods. The vessels were con- 
 structed under a contract, by regular New- York ship- 
 wrights, sent to Erie for that purpose. The men that Per- 
 ry took with him, were flotilla-men, better than common it is 
 believed, but as little able to construct a ship, as any others 
 of their class* 
 
 He says, " They (the Newport boysj built from the 
 stump, six vessels ; the Lawrence, of twenty guns — two 
 long twelves, and eighteen twenty four pound carronades ; 
 the Niagara, of two long twelves, and eighteen twenty-four 
 pound carronades ; the Ariel, of four guns, 18 and 24 lbs ; 
 the Scorpion, of two guns, thirty-twos ; the Porcupine, 
 of one gun, a thirty-two; and the Tigress, of one gun, a 
 thirty-two." Now, all of these armaments, with the ex- 
 ception of the two last, are wrong. The Lawrence and 
 Niagara had each eighteen thirty-two pound carronades ; 
 the Ariel had four twelves ; and the Scorpion had one 
 twenty-four. 
 
 He says, " The British vessels were stout built, with thick 
 bulwarks of solid oak ; but the American were built in a 
 hasty manner, and intended merely to carry guns and men ; 
 and bring them down along side of their adversary y This 
 passage must have given great satisfaction to the learned 
 members of the Society before whom the lecture was read. 
 
 He says, " The British fleet had a veteran commander, 
 the American a young sailor. Barclay had conquered with 
 Nelson, at Trafalgar; Perry had probably never see?i the 
 combined movement of ships, in a fleet, formed in line of 
 battle." Capt. Barclay is understood to have been thiriy-two, 
 when he fought this battle ; Perry was born in August, 
 21st, 1785, and consequently wanted just twenty days of 
 being twenty-eight, on this occasion. 
 
 He says, " The vessels of the enemy were impervious to 
 the shot of our carronades.'''' If so, it is clear Perry him- 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 15 
 
 self, had little personal agency in capturing them, as he 
 was on board of vessels armed with this species of gun. 
 This militates a good deal against the claim of Rhode Isl- 
 and to the victory. 
 
 He says. " In the whole fleet (the British) were three 
 captains, and the commanders. While in the American, 
 there was (were) but two captains. Perry and Elliott; 
 all the other vessels were commanded by lieutenants, 
 sailing-masters, or midshipmen." There was no com- 
 modore, nor any captain on the lake, in either squadron. 
 There were two commanders on the side of the English, 
 Barclay and Finnis ; and two on the side of the Ameri- 
 cans, Perry and Elhott. The commodore of the English 
 was Sir James Lucas Yeo ; and of the Americans, Isaac 
 Chauncey. 
 
 It would be easy to extend this list of the errors, made 
 by Mr. Burges, in stating his case, but enough has been 
 shown to prove the exceeding carelessness with which a 
 lecture that professes to correct history, has been written. 
 All the foregoing blunders are fairly stated, having nothing 
 in the context to qualify them, and all may be found in the 
 first ten or twelve pages of Mr. Burges's opening. 
 
 As my answer to Capt. Mackenzie Avill meet the more 
 material allegations of Mr. Burges's facts, as they relate to 
 the battle, I shall content myself with showing the truth of 
 what has been said, in the four heads of objections. We 
 will therefore proceed to the second. 
 
 His witnesses, according to his own showing, contradict 
 each other on important points " He (Perry)" says Mr. 
 Burges, " ran down till every carronade and musket might 
 reach its mark. Taylor (the saihng-master of Perry's 
 brig) says witlnn canister distance ; Perry says, in his des- 
 patch and account of the battle, at half canister ; and Yar- 
 nell, the 1st lieutenant who was ordered to note if the shot 
 told, says at half musket shot ; 50 yards, 150 feet; not 
 quite so far as from where I stand to the foot of the bridge." 
 Here M-^e have three witnesses to the material fact of the 
 distance at which Perry engaged the enemy, and each dif- 
 ferinoj from the other ! As if this were not sufficient, Mr. 
 Burges gives what he says is an extract from the Law- 
 rence's logbook, page 83, in which are the folloAving 
 
16 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 words — " In half an hour we (the Lawrence) came within 
 musket shot of the enemy's new ship Detroit." Here then, 
 we get canister, half-canister, musket, and half-musket 
 shot, as the distances of these four witnesses; each dif- 
 ering from all the others ! 
 
 He sometimes contradicts his own witnesses. This Mr. 
 Burges has done, in the instance just quoted. After giv- 
 ing " canister shot," " half-canister," " musket" and "half- 
 musket," as the distances at which Perry engaged in the 
 La\yrence, he very cooly sets down this distance, himself, 
 as " 150 feet !" Not satisfied with taking this great liber- 
 ty with the testimony, he goes on to say, '* In this position, 
 at this slauffhterino; distance, the Lawrence encountered 
 the Detioit, and there sustained the conflict with her, and 
 the vessels which came to her aid, for two and one half 
 hours." page 36. That is to say, the Lawrence fought the 
 Detroit, Hunter, and Charlotte, in smooth water, two hours 
 and a half, within 150 feet ! Not satisfied with this tour de 
 force^ Mr. Burges, by necessary implication makes the Cal- 
 edonia, a brig totally without quarters, join in this melee^ 
 and actually pass hetioeen the combatants ! I presume it 
 is unnecessary to tell any man who has the slightest knowl- 
 edge of gunnery, that such an occurrence is virtually im- 
 possible. This is just the distance at which two ninetv- 
 gun ships would go foul, to avoid each other's fire. Missing 
 would be impossible, and of course, a protracted engage- 
 ment impossible. When ships touch, the guns cannot be 
 efi*ectively trained ; but, at 150 feet, shot, of all sizes, could 
 be sent directly into the ports of the antagonist. Ten min- 
 utes would settle the fate of the Pennsylvania, under such 
 circumstances. Capt. Mackenzie, a writer who is by no 
 means diffident on the subject of assertions to eff*ect his 
 object, and who endeavors to place Perry in as perilous 
 circumstances as possible, puts this distance at 350 yards. 
 I believe, myself, that the Lawrence backed her top-sail 
 when distant 500 yards from the Detroit ; though, after she 
 was crippled, she doubtless sagged nearer to the enemy. 
 
 Take another specimen of Mr.Burges's disrespect for his 
 own testimony, " Engage your adversary, each as you 
 come up, as before directed," he rightly says, was Perry's 
 last order, as he went into action. " This," Mr. Burges 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 17 
 
 adds, " be it remembered, was, in close action at half ca- 
 blets length.''^ pa^^ 35. Now, in his appendix, Mr Burges 
 gives Perry's own account of his order of battle, in these 
 words^ — '* An order directing in what manner the line of 
 battle should be formed ; the several vessels to keep with- 
 in half cahW s length of each other, ifec." page 99. Here 
 then Mr. Burges cooly puts down the distance between the 
 American ships, as the distance at Avhich the enemy was to 
 be fought, and in direct opposition to Perry's own account, 
 this being every syllable that was said of half-cable's 
 length in the orders ! Half-cable's length is 360 feet, and 
 Capt. Perry would not be apt to order vessels without quar- 
 ters, carrying long thirty-twos, to engage at a distance that 
 would just suit their enemy, and be of no advantage to 
 themselves. Nothing is said of any distance, in Perry's 
 orders, beyond the general command for close action, which 
 means within effective range of the missiles relied on. — 
 Capt. Mackenzie thinks Perry ^^ as in close action, at 350 
 yards; and, as this was considerably more than a whole 
 cable's length, the commanding officer must have set a 
 very bad example to his subordinates, if Mr. Burges'a ac- 
 count of his orders were true. As Perry led, he would 
 have been the first man to disobey his own orders. 
 
 It would be easy to show other instances, in which Mr. 
 Burges disregarded his witnesses, but I pass them by, to 
 come at once to tlie weakest and most extravagant of all 
 his assertions. * His statements are often opposed to the 
 known laws of nature, and they sometimes involve gross 
 physical impossibilities !' 
 
 In his account of the battle, Mr. Burges says, *' that the 
 Niagara still hugged the wind, and kejyt at a distance, 
 freshened as the breeze was, by such a blaze from so many 
 guns for two hours and a half." page 43. Here we have 
 the novel proposition that a cannonading " freshens the 
 wind," whereas seamen believe it *' kills the wind" as they 
 term it. As counteracting forces have a tendency to neu- 
 tralize each other, we must think, to say nothing of some 
 experience on the subject, that the sailors have the best 
 of it. 
 
 But this is a trifle, compared to what is to follow. That 
 the reader may better understand Mr. Burges' extraordi- 
 2* 
 
IS BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 nary theories, we here give the second of the diagrams, 
 with which he has adorned his book. At page 38, of the 
 lecture the reader wil] frnd the following — " He (Captain 
 Elliottj admits in that book (Life of Com. Elliott) that in- 
 stead of making all sail, and running down upon his ad- 
 versary, the Queen Charlotte, as he had been ordered to 
 do, no less than three times, and engaging her at half ca- 
 ble's length, h*^ threw his topsail to the mast and brailed 
 up his jib, so as to keep his position on the water as nearly 
 as practicable. Every nautical man will tell us that this 
 position of the sails would hold his ship to the wind, and 
 keep her in her then present place ; so that all the ships en- 
 gaged, ivoulcl he sagging slowly ahead, and to the leeward ; 
 until the Caledonia and the Lawrence were directly be- 
 tween the Niagara and the Detroit and the Queen Char- 
 lotte.'''' I take it nothing, as a proposition, in the English 
 language, is more extraordinary than this. The diagram 
 will help the reader in understanding it, though IMr. Bur- 
 ges's text, among other extravagances, contradicts this very 
 diagram. Let us look at the diagram. The letters d &, 
 5, and the figures 4 &. 3, are the ships engaged ; a. being 
 the Charlotte, b, the Detroit (English vessels) 4, the 
 Caledonia, and 3 the Lawrence, (Americans.) These four 
 vessels are "sagging slowly ahead, and to the leeward." 
 Of course, their movement was froju the point 6, the spot 
 at which Mr. Burges says the Niagara threw her *' topsail 
 to the mast and brailed up her jib," and where all seamen 
 agree in saying that she must have virtually remained — to- 
 ward the lower angle of the diagram, or in a direct line 
 away from the Niagara, until the Caledonia and Lawrence 
 got, in consequence of their drift ahead and to leeward, in 
 company with the Detroit and Charlotte, between her and 
 the two latter vessels! Now, I respectfully submit, this 
 could not be accomplished unless the four vessels engaged 
 drifted round the whole eaith, in a straight line, regardless 
 of islands and continents, in the short space of two hours 
 and a half, or during the battle" If the Niagara lay sta- 
 tionary at the point 6, and 3, 4,d So b sagged ahead and to 
 leeward, until they brought 3 &. 4, between 6, and b & d,'it 
 could only happen by this pr< cess. Absurd as all this is, 
 Mr. Burges's proposition will admit of no other solution. 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 19 
 
 DIAGRAM, NO. 2. 
 
20 
 
 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 DIAGRAM, NO. 3. 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 21 
 
 I know he did not mean this ; but he says it, in effect. What 
 he really meant, he probably did not know himself. His 
 head was a jumble of accusations and charges aj^ainst 
 Com. Elliott, and backed up by the gallant little State of 
 Rhode Island, he ventures on this mathematical prodigy. 
 One feels surprised that a man of talents, as Mr. Burges 
 is said to be, (1 know nothing of him personally) should 
 presume to utter such trash to a Historical Society. Bad 
 as it is, however, it was much applauded by the New York 
 American, New York Commercial Advertiser, and other 
 leadmg journals of that seat of virtue and intelligence, the 
 great commercial emporium of this great commercial coun- 
 try, to say nothing of other papers, from which, as they are 
 conducted by men equally without truth, education, or 
 talents, nothing better was to be expected ! 
 
 Let us, now, look at Mr. Burges's third diagram. The 
 reader will find it on the opposite page. In this diagram, 
 the author has placed a star, at the point where he says 
 Capt. Perry found the Lawrence. A dotted line shows the 
 course he steered in cutting the British line. A vessel 
 numbered 3, represents the position occupied by the Law- 
 rence, at this moment. Now, at pages 44, 54, 60, &- 67, the 
 reader will find Mr. Burges's text on the subject of the 
 relative positions of these two vessels, when Perry went on 
 board the Niagara. At page 66, he says : " The Law- 
 rence was within half musket shot of the enemy when 
 Perry left her, and the Niagara was out of cannon shot 
 ivhen he reached her.'''' In a word, the whole of Mr. Bur- 
 ges's theory is to maintain that Capt. Elliott had the 
 Niagara about a mile to windward of the Lawrence, at 
 this moment. At page 54, he says that the Niagara was 
 as far to windward of th« Lawrence, at this instant, as 
 eight men could pull a cutter, in smooth water, in ten 
 minutes. *' Some oarsmen tell me two," he adds, '* some 
 one and a half, but none less than one mile. So far from 
 the Lawrence, and a little farther, half musket shot, from 
 the enemy, was the Niagara when Perry reached her deck." 
 The star, then, is intended to represent a point, at least, 
 one mile to windward of the place where Perry left the 
 Lawrence. But No. 3, represents the Lawrence to wind- 
 ward of the star, and, the last being an immovable point, 
 
22 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 in the nature of thinsjs, it follows that Mr. Burges means, 
 in this diagram, to represent the Lawrence, a crippled and 
 unmanageable vessel, as having drifted more than a mile 
 to windward, without the aid of a current, their being none 
 on Lake Erie. A. reference to the text will show that this 
 tour de force must have been accomplished, too, in fifteen 
 minutes. In this instance, Mr. Burges's words sustain his 
 diao-ram ! By referring to his explanations, it will be seen 
 he gives this account of the matter — "No. 3, the Lawrence, 
 which had drifted to windward, after Perry left her." If 
 this were not " flat burglary," it was clearly mutiny, against 
 the laws of physics. 
 
 Mr. Burges has written about facts which he has derived 
 from the information of partisans, and on a profesional sub- 
 ject of which he is profoundly ignorant. I shall take my 
 leave of him, by producing a single instance of his logic — 
 not to say morality — in a matter where clear and just ideas 
 might have been expected from a lawyer. This will be 
 done with less hesitation, since every essential point con- 
 nected with the few questions really in dispute between 
 Capts. Perry and Elliott, and which has been broached 
 by this writer, will be met in the answer to Capt. Mac- 
 kenzie. The instance of logic alluded to, is as follows, 
 viz: — 
 
 In his official account of the battle, Capt. Perry makes 
 use of this language : " At half past two, the ^vind 
 springing up, Capt Elliott was enabled to bring his vessel, 
 the Niagara, gallantly into close action." The Perry 
 faction — for the combination of men, who have united to 
 obscure, if not to falsify the truth, in this matter, deserve 
 the epithet — The Perry faction contend that Elhott did not 
 bring the Niagara into close action, at all ; some of them 
 go so far, even, as to maintain she w-as out of reach of 
 shot, until Perry got on board of her. This theory is 
 maintained, like many others they advance, at the expence 
 of a great deal of contradiction. Of course, it was neces- 
 sary to get rid of this statement of Perry's, which could 
 hardly be explained away by the pretence that his object 
 was to shield Capt. Elliott, as is set up as an apology for 
 his general eulogium on the conduct of this officer in the 
 battle. This would be an untruth, with circumstance, and 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 23 
 
 far stronger than a simple untruth, which is all they wish 
 to impute to Capt. Perry. Here is Mr. Burges's account 
 of the matter. 
 
 '* On the 13th Sept."- he says " he (Perry) sent a second 
 despatch to the secretary of the Navy, *to give him some 
 of the particulars of the battle.' Here he saved Elliott by 
 a benevolent amhlguity. He says '•'■at half past two^ the 
 wind springing up, Capt Elliott was enabled to bring his 
 vessel, the Niagara, gallantly into close action. He was 
 Enabled, he could say ; he could Jiot say he did bring the 
 Niagara into close action." Some reasoninof follows to 
 show that Mr. B urges considers Oiis a point in his case. 
 The italics and capitals are his own. 
 
 If the Historical Society of Rhode Island learned nothing 
 else from the lecture of Mr. Burges, it had an opportunity 
 of ascertaining what one of the eminent citizens of that 
 State is pleased to term a "benevolent ambiguity." In 
 this section of the country, we have a good many of these 
 *' benevolent ambiguities" practiced by a certain caste of 
 lawyers ; more especially before the County Courts and 
 Justices of the Peace. Among gentlemen, every where, 
 the benevolence would meet with but little respect, while 
 the ** ambiguity" would excite disgust. As for Capt. Per- 
 ry, for even Capt. Mackenzie adopts Mr. Burges's reas- 
 oning on this point, so far at least as I can understand him, 
 I find myself placed in the singular position of being 
 obliged to '* save him from his friends." That officer had 
 not so much forgotten what was due to his honorable pro- 
 fession, as to meditate any evasion as sneaking as that 
 which is here attributed to him. This is fully proved by 
 the context of his own letter, if proof, indeed, be necessary 
 to vindicate Oliver Perry from an act altogether so un- 
 worthy of his reputation, and of the service of which he 
 was a distinguished member. 
 
 The eulogiums Perry bestows on Capt. Elliot, in other 
 parts of his official report of the battle, prove that he in- 
 tended no equivocation in this particular sentence. More 
 than enough was elsewhere said to shield that officer, if 
 this were in truth the motive of the " benevolent ambiguity," 
 without resorting to so miserable a subterfuge. But, Mr. 
 Burges does not quote the whole sentence, the part omit- 
 
24 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 ted conclusively answering his interpretation. Capt. Per- 
 ry says, " At half past two, the wind springing up, Capt. 
 Elliott was enabled to bring his vessel, the Niagara, gal- 
 lantly into close action ; I wimediatcly went on hoard of 
 her^ when he anticipated my wish by volunteering to bring 
 the schooners, which had been kept astern by the lightness 
 of the wind, into close action." Here we see Capt. Perry 
 expressly referring to this change of position, this coming 
 into close action, where Mr. B urges boasts that Perry was 
 himself, as giving him (Perry) an opportunity of making 
 the change of vessel of which he speaks. The use of the 
 word " immediately," too, shows this. It refers to time, 
 of course ; and to what time can Mr. Burges apply it, if it 
 be not immediately after Capt. Elliott had got ' into 
 close action.' Does he think Perry would have said " im- 
 mediately after Capt. Elliott was enabled to get into close 
 action, I went on board the Niagara 1" This would have 
 been a very comphcated falsifying of the truth. Perry's 
 language had no such object ; it is simple, direct, and not 
 to be misunderstood. His letter, moreover, furnishes proof 
 for itself, how he understood this word " enabled." In 
 speaking of the Ariel and Scorpion, two vessels, that even 
 Mr. Burges admits ^o^ early into close action, Capt. Perry 
 says — 
 
 " The Ariel, Lt. Packet, and Scorpion, Sailing Master 
 Champlin, were enabled to get early into the action, and 
 were of great service.''^ Here " enabled" is unequivocally 
 used in direct connection with performance, and without 
 any " benevolent ambiguity." 
 
 I have not taken the pains to refute this interpretation 
 of Messrs. Burges and Mackenzie, with the slightest 
 idea that any man of ordinary honesty, or ordinary intellect 
 could require it, but, because it furnishes a fair specimen 
 of the means that have been employed in defending the 
 other side of this question, and may give the reader some 
 notion of the moral calibre of the men with whom I have 
 had to contend. 
 
 I shall here take leave of ]\[r. Burges, after adverting to 
 one other point, and this less with any view to my own 
 justification, than to the justification of a gentleman who 
 has keenly felt his imputations, as cruel and calumnious 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 25 
 
 insinuations against his own veracity. There were but 
 three medical men in the American squadron on Lake 
 Erie : viz. Messrs. Horsely and Barton, the surgeons of 
 the Lawrence and Niagara, and Dr. Usher Parsons, of 
 Rhode Island^ the surgeon's mate of the latter vessel. Ail 
 three of these gentlemen had taken the fever, but l.)r. Par- 
 sons had recovered when the battle was fought. Dr. Barton, 
 the gentleman to whom I allude, made an affidavit, in 1821, 
 on the subject of the points in disjDute. As the enemies 
 of Capt. Elliott then contended, and have ever since con- 
 tended, that the Niagara was hardly in action at all, until 
 Perry took her there, and that she had but one or two men 
 hurt, until after Perry got on board, Dr. Barton's testi- 
 mony bore principally on these two points. As respects 
 the wounded he was the best evidence of which the case 
 admitted, a wounded man going to the surgeon, as a mat- 
 ter of course. In order to get rid of the testimony of Dr. 
 Barton, then, Mr. Burges, and 1 may add Capt. Mackenzie 
 and most who have written on that side of the controversy 
 since 1821, maintain that this gentleman was in his berth, 
 and could not know the facts concerning which he testifies. 
 Now it happens, that Dr. Barton's testimony is far better, 
 as to manner^ than that given by most of the opposing 
 witnesses. He is evidently a man who states with proper 
 caution, and one who wishes to say no more than the oc- 
 casion called for. The appearance of Mr. Burgres's book 
 greatly mortified this gentleman, who lives in Virginia a 
 life so retired, that in his letters to Com. Elliott, which have 
 been transmitted to me, he appeals to the testimony of 
 • inany officers, to sustain his statements, most of whom 
 have been dead from fifteen to twenty years. These letters, 
 if published, would remove every doubt as to the ability of 
 Dr. Barton to prove the facts to which he swears, but they 
 are too long, nor have I authority to lay them before the 
 world. Of the testimony, itself, I shall speak hereafter, it 
 being my intention now merely to explain the circum- 
 stances under which Dr. Barton has testified. 
 
 Dr. Barton was ill previously to the action. When it was 
 
 ascertained that a battle was to be fouo-ht, he did what anv 
 
 man would have done under the circumstances, who could 
 
 do it ; he summoned all his strength, prepared for the oc- 
 
 3 
 
26 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 casion, and was at his post, from early in the morning, 
 until late in the evening. The wounded of the Niagara 
 came to him, and were attended to by him. At length, 
 nature gave way, and his exertions produced a reaction 
 which laid him up. In consequence of his exertions on 
 the day of the battle, Dr. Parsons had to attend the wound- 
 ed of the Niagara, after the battle ; and in consequence 
 of Dr. Parsons' attending the wounded after the battle, it 
 has been asserted that Dr. Barton was in his berth, during 
 the battle, and could not know the facts to which he testifies. 
 In answer to all this, I shall say, first — that Dr. Barton 
 testifies to little that he might not have known had he been 
 in his berth, the ward-room and steerage being used as a 
 cockpit; second, that Dr. Barton unequivocally denies the 
 statement that he was not on duty, and furnishes evidence 
 to sustain him. Other officers of the Niagara corroborate 
 this statement. Among other facts to which Dr. Barton 
 testifies, he says in reference to the allegation that the 
 Niagara was not within reach of shot before Capt. Perry 
 reached her, " one man was mortally wounded on the 
 berth-deck very early in the contest, by a shot which pass- 
 ed through both sides of the vessel ; and it would seem 
 from this that she was not entirely out of reach of the ene- 
 my." This is awkward testimony, since it disposes of the 
 question of distance ; men might be mistaken, from a va- 
 riety of causes ; but a cannon ball could not lie. It was 
 necessary to get rid of this testimony, and, as Dr. Barton's 
 character is too good to impeach him directly, he is stowed 
 away in a berth, in order to give an air of hearsay or 
 conjecture to the circumstances he relates. Now it hap- 
 pens that Dr. Barton, in one of his letters written as re- 
 cently as since the appearance of Mr. Burges's lecture, 
 incidentally and naturally alludes to this occurrence, for 
 he does not appear to know that his account of this par- 
 ticular incident was questioned, except by placing him in 
 his berth ; rendering his testimony still more probable. 
 His account is this. A wounded man had been lowered 
 down the forward hatch, and be had gone forward to re- 
 ceive him. While passing along the berth-deck, the shot in 
 question entered, mortally wounded a man who was al- 
 ready dying in his hammock, of the fever, and passed out 
 
BATTT-E OP LAfeE ERIE* 27 
 
 at the opposite side of the brig. This was Dr. Barton's 
 first service, and he mentions all this, not as testimony, not 
 in justification of what he had said previously, but in a 
 paragraph in which he describes his own feelings to his old 
 commander, in a very natural summary of the impressions 
 that had been made on himself, on an occasion entirely 
 novel. One such natural and incidental narrative, pro- 
 ceeding from a man of character, is worth a dozen affida- 
 vits drawn up by a lawyer, who has an end in view, and 
 sworn to under dictation. It is proper to add, however, 
 that all which Dr. Barton states in his letter of 1821, is 
 sworn to. 
 
 Here I leave Mr. Burges, for the present. I say for the 
 present, as many of his statements will be answered, in 
 answering those of Capt. Mackenzie. I must correct my- 
 self — while writing this paragraph my eye has fallen on 
 one of Mr. Bursres's cool contradictions of his own wit- 
 nesses which is too glaring to overlook. At pages 91, &. 92, 
 he gives the finding of the Court of Inquiry, which sat on 
 Capt. Elliott, in 1815. In it are these words ; " The Court 
 of Inquiry convened at the request of Capt. Jesse D. Elli- 
 ott, having deliberately examined all the evidence produced 
 before them, for the purpose of investigating his conduct 
 in the glorious battle of Lake Erie, on the 10th Sept. 1813, 
 in loliich he bore so conspicuous a jjart, sincerely regrets 
 ifec." — again — " The Court, however, feel convinced that 
 the attempts to wrest from Capt. Elliott the laurels he 
 gained in that splendid victory^ ou!i;ht in no wise to lessen 
 him in the opinion of his fellow citizens, &c." 
 "^ On the very page on which Mr. Burges publishes this 
 finding of the Court, he says for hniiself — " This opinion 
 merely negatives the allegation of the British Court Mar- 
 tial, viz : — That Elliott was " making away from the bat- 
 tle." Thus, according to Mr. Burges, when a Court 
 speaks of the " conspicuous part" borne by an officer in a 
 battle, and "of the laurels he had gained," it means merely 
 that he did not run away i There is Uttle of " benevolent 
 ambiguity" in this. 
 
 The admission of Capt. Mackenzie that he is the author 
 of the article in the North American Review, greatly sim- 
 plifies my answer to that journal. As his authorities are 
 
38 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 very much the same for this article and his Life of Perry, 
 they will he met when 1 come to reply to that book. It 
 may be well, however, to point out in passina^, the manner 
 in which public opinion isinanufactured among us. Here 
 are the Commercial Advertiser, the North American Re- 
 view, and Capt. Mackenzie, of the U. S. Navy, a chival- 
 rous and enlightened gentleman, forsooth, all agreeing to 
 decry the Naval History, in its account of the Battle of 
 Lake Erie, a certain sign that its author has been careless, 
 or corrupt ! When we get behind the curtain we find all 
 three of these articles come from the same connection, and 
 two from the same man. Corrupt ! what motive could I 
 have for not joining in the cry against Com. Elliott, be- 
 yond a wish to tell the truth ? Is it politics 1 When and 
 where have I ever sought political favor 1 It has been 
 well known to my friends, that for years and years, I have 
 uniformly declared no probable inducement could tempt me 
 to hold office under the people or government of this coun- 
 try. I have never asked it, and no man has a right to say 
 I wish it. But is Com. Elliott such a favorite that servinir 
 him in this matter would be likely to serve myself? Is 
 it not matter of notoriety that the advantage all will admit 
 I have gained in this controversy, has been gained right in 
 the teeth of a most violent popular prejudice? Com. El- 
 liott has been bitterly and blindly assailed by one party, 
 while the other has never sustained him. The naked truth 
 is, that corruption stalks so boldly through the land, that 
 when a man acts under the influence of the simple right, 
 his conduct is not appreciated, and that portion of the 
 community which creates public opinion — if the ephemeral 
 notions of the day merit so respectable an epithet — imme- 
 diately busy themselves in hunting up for him the most 
 plausible bit of baseness they can imagine, by way of a 
 motive. The truth is not to be concealed — a man is much 
 safer among us, by the frank avowal of a tolerably corrupt 
 incentive, than by pretending to principle ; there being a 
 prevalent indisposition to believe in the existence of the 
 latter. 
 
 As for the North American, I shall answer directly to 
 only one of its charges, leaving the rest for that which is to 
 come after, Capt. Mackenzie accuses me of having sup- 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 29 
 
 pressed the fact of the superiority of the British in force, 
 because I have omitted to say that they had 63 guns, in 
 the battle of Lake Erie, while Perry had but 54 ! Now 
 does Capt. Mackenzie, will any sailor say that the number 
 of the guns settles the question of the superiority of force I 
 In the first place, owing to the manner in which his guns 
 were mounted, Perry fought just as many in broadside as 
 his enemy, at once destroying this seeming disparity. Then 
 the weight of the guns and the size of the vessels were 
 altogether in favor of the Americans. These facts are be- 
 yond controversy, though there is some little question as to 
 a part of the English metal. I have never entertained a 
 doubt that the Americans were superior to their enemy, in 
 force, comparing whole numbers with whole numbers, on 
 the 10th Sept. ; though they fought under disadvantages 
 which tended materially to neutralize this disparity. This 
 much is substantially admitted in the History, though the 
 precise calibres of the guns is not given, as some doubts 
 were thrown over the point. I would not give the number 
 of the English guns, when I could not give their calibres. 
 It suited Capt. Mackenzie to parade the 54 against the 63, 
 but it did not suit me. In order to prove that my for- 
 bearance was more just than his boasting of this appar- 
 ent disparity, I now give the English official account of the 
 metal of both parties. 
 
 English Squadron. 
 
 Detroit, ]9 Guns, 2 long 24's ; ] long 18, on pivot ; 6 long 32's ; 
 
 8 long D's ; 1 24 lbs. carronade ; 1 18 lbs. 
 
 carronade. 
 ' 1 long J2, on pivot; 2 long 9's; 14 24 lbs. 
 
 carronades. 
 1 long 9, on pivot; 2 long 6's; 10 12 lbs; 
 
 carronades. 
 4 long 6'b; 2 long 4's ; 21ong2's; 2 12 lbs. 
 
 carronades. 
 1 long 12, on pivot; 2 long 6's. 
 
 1 long 9. 
 
 Metal, total — 851. Average as to guns, 13 1-2 
 lbs. each gun. 
 
 Charlotte 
 
 17 
 
 Lady Prevost 
 
 ,13 
 
 Hunter, 
 
 10 
 
 Little Belt, 
 
 3 
 
 Chippeway, 
 
 1 
 
 Guns, 
 
 63 
 
 
 3* 
 
30 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 American Squadron. 
 
 Lawrence, 20 guns. 2 long 12's ; 18 32 lbs. carronades, 
 
 Niagara, 20 " 21ongl2's; 18 32 lbs. carronades. 
 
 Caledonia, 3 " 21ong24's; 1 32 lbs. carronade. 
 
 Ariel, 4 " 4 long 12's, on pivots. 
 
 Somers, 2 " 1 long 24 : 1 32 lbs. carronade. 
 
 Porcupine, 1 " 1 long 32, pivot. 
 
 Tigress, 1 *'' 1 long 32, pivot. 
 
 Scorpion, 1 " 1 long 32, 1 24 lbs. carronade, on pivots. 
 
 Trippe, 1 " 1 long 24, pivot. 
 
 Guns, 54 Metal total — 1480 — Average as to guns 27 1-2 lbs. 
 each gun; or about double that of the English. 
 
 Such is Capt. Barclay's account of the force. That he 
 has not diminished his own is probable, as he has certainly 
 not exaggerated the American. The Trippe had a long 
 32, instead of the 24 he has given her, while the Scorpion 
 is believed to have had a long 24, and a 32 lb. carronade. 
 The remainder of the American metal is thought to be 
 correctly given. But, allowing some small inaccuracies to 
 exist, who will pretend that the 63 English guns, cseteris 
 paribus, are equal to the 54 American 1 
 
 I do not think all this difference of force was fairly avail- 
 able to the Americans, under the circumstances in which 
 the battle was actually fought, but I can entertain no doubt 
 that by simply parading the fact before the reader, that the 
 English had nine guns more than the Americans, I should 
 not have given him an accurate idea of the relative physi- 
 cal means of the two parties, considered as a whole. Much 
 of my minute information comes from the late Capt. Holdup 
 Stevens, who was a witness against Capt. Elliott in the con- 
 troversy, and this gentleman freely adnjitted to me the su- 
 periority of our squadron. Other officers employed on the 
 10th of Sept. have done the same. I know that Perry 
 maintained tliat he was inferior, but I think he was wrong. 
 In a biographical sketch of that officer, written by myself, 
 the point is discussed at a little length, and I refer the read- 
 er to it for my side of the question. I do not believe there 
 is a respectable man living, who has ever seen the two 
 squadrons, who would deliberately swear, in a court of jus- 
 tice, that the English were superior to the Americans in 
 physical means, without reference to the manner in which 
 these means happened to be employed, on the 10th Sept. 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 31 
 
 An officer of great experience, one friendly to Perry, who 
 had seen much service in battle, visited the squadrons on 
 LaiieErie and Lake Champlain, before they were separat- 
 ed ; and he tokl me that he thought the Lawrence and Ni- 
 agara, could they have got within effective distance imme- 
 diately, sufficient to have defeated all of Barclay's force 
 united, especially with a stiff breeze ; and on the other 
 hand, that he thought the Confiance nearly, if not quite 
 equal, to all JMcDonough^s. I know this is not the doc- 
 trine to gain favor ; but my aim is truth, and not personal 
 popularity. Wherever I err, it is done ignorantly. 
 
 1 come now to the criticism of Mr. William A. Duer, as 
 it was published in the Commercial Advertiser. This gen- 
 tleman is an uncle, by marriage, of Capt. Mackenzie, and 
 his beautiful article may be taken as a part of the family 
 picture. He probably did not anticipate, when he wrote it, 
 all the consequences to himself that might flow from his 
 occupation. 
 
 As this article was considered libellous, I sued the editor 
 of the journal for the wrong he had done me. The case 
 was referred to arbitrators, and the result was a dscision 
 in my favor; a morale as well as a legal decision. 'J'his 
 removes the necessity for dwelling on much that it might, 
 otherwise, have been well to answer. As the argument 
 and evidence are the same, with all the controversiahsts on 
 that side, I shall defer my answers, to the reply to Capt* 
 Mackenzie in this instance also ; pointing out, now, a suf- 
 ficient number of instances to put this pretended review 
 before the world in its true colois. 
 
 I shall show that this article was written — 1st, unfairly, 
 as to its pretension and performance ; 2d, that it is written 
 in ignorance ; 3d, that it is not sufficiently tenacious of the 
 truth ; 4th, that it lays down positions, which its own wit- 
 nesses contradict ; 5th that it was written with a direct in- 
 tention to deceive, or with a carelessness of facts that is 
 but little less culpable, when it is remembered that char- 
 acter was connected with its statements. If I fail to es- 
 tablish every one of these positions, let the consequences 
 be visited on myself: If I succeed in my undertaking, let 
 the public do justice in the premises. I might here quote 
 the decision of the arbitrators on the moral issue that was 
 
32 ' BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 laid before them, but I m ill rest my case on a few proofs; 
 and arguments, that 1 prefer to offer to the world, before^ 
 any opinions, coming from what source the latter may. 
 
 The first sentence contains a falsehood in fact, as well, 
 as a false pretension, as to all the known objects of a re- 
 viewer. It is in these words, viz : 
 
 ** Cooper's Naval History. — Although the same courte- 
 sy has not been extended to us in regard to this book, by; 
 its publishers, which we uniformly experienced on similar 
 occasions, before we committed any criticism upon Mr. 
 Cooper or his works — and which we have since continued 
 to experience with respect to the works published by them 
 of other authors — yet we felt so much interest in the sub- 
 ject as to induce us, notwithstanding this neglect — which, 
 as we do not impute it to the worthy booksellers, is upon 
 the whole rather flattering — to obtain tliis last work of Mr. . 
 Cooper's in spite of his prohibition, and to give it early,, 
 deliberate and candid perusal." 
 
 I have extracted this precious opening, simply as a spe- 
 cimen of editorial impudence, and recklessness of asser- 
 tion. I say editorial, because Mr. Stone has admitted that 
 he wrote it himself; prefixing it to Mr. Duer's pretended 
 criticism. The reader is asked to examine it. " Commit- 
 ting criticism" upon Mr. Cooper and his works, in the first 
 place, have induced his publishers, to deny Mr. Stone the 
 courtesy of offering new copies of his different works. Mr. 
 Stone has committed libels on Mr. Cooper, and he has 
 smarted for it, and is very hkely to smart for it again, if that 
 is what he calls criticism. Notwithstanding this neglect — 
 the neglect of offering the editor of a daily newspaper a 
 book that sold for $4,50! — Mr. Stone nobly resolved to 
 obtain a copy — whether bought or begged he does not say 
 — and to give it early, deliberate and candid perusal. All 
 this he manfully resolved on performing, in spite of Mr. 
 Cooper's prohibition to his publishers, about giving him a 
 set gratuitously This is one of the party, too, who has 
 talked of levying black mail from the press, because I have 
 dared to enforce the laws of the land against the tyranni-, 
 cal course of a portion of his corps. Comment is unneces- 
 sary ; the facts speaking for themselves. The whole pic- 
 ture is complete, when 1 add that Messrs. Lea & Blanch- 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 33 
 
 ard wrote to Mr. Stone to say that they never received any 
 such prohibition from me, and that Mr. Stone subsequent- 
 ly explained away his allegation, by speaking of it as only 
 u thing he had suggested as " probable." 
 
 The profession of " early, dehberate and candid peru- 
 ai" will be made to appear in its true colors as I proceed.* 
 * AVe had hoped that on this occasion," continues my crit- 
 ic, *' Mr. Cooper — to use a sea phrase, as he does, in a 
 sense that a seaman never used it in — would ' so aloft' in- 
 stead of remaining in the cockpit." I confess I was a lit- 
 tle surprised at this, as it is asserting I am so ignorant as 
 not to understand the use of the commonest sea terms. As 
 Mr. Stone, on the face of the article, wrote this paragraph 
 also, and he is no seaman, I presume he has detected my 
 ignorance through the seamen he has consulted on this oc- 
 casion. I can conjecture, but do not pretenS to Jcnoio who 
 these are, but there is little doubt, if their criticism applies 
 to the expression I understand it to mean, that they are 
 just fit, as sailors, and as men familiar with the language of 
 the finest sea in the world, to furnish facts to a reviewer of 
 the Stone calibre. In the Naval History, the terms " go 
 aloft," " went aloft," "gone aloft" &c.,were applied to 
 ships that had passed up the Mediterranean. This is 
 using a term, as no sailor ever before used it in ! Now, I 
 unhesitatingly say that this is the common expression at the 
 Rock, and that I had heard it probably a thousand times, 
 before Mr. Stone ever saw even the Atlantic. 
 
 This article is written unfairly as to pretension and per- 
 formance. The caption is " Cooper's Naval History;" and 
 " this last ivork of Mr. Cooper" is to receive an •' early, 
 deliberate and a candid perusal." After all this profession, 
 what is this pretended review 1 Not a word is said of any 
 event, fact, or narrative, with a solitary exception, beyond 
 the Battle of Lake Erie. Like Jack's letter to his mother, 
 the result of this ' deliberate and candid perusal' is an arti- 
 cle that is all " pig-tail" — all, the Battle of Lake Erie. It 
 came, like the Biography of Commodore Perry, from the 
 same clique, and cannot travel out of the family ! Oliver 
 Perry was its burthen, and such men as M'Donough, De- 
 catur, Paul Jones and fifty others, were as if they had never 
 lived. Instead of assuming " Cooper's Naval History" for 
 
a 
 
 E 
 
 34 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 his caption, the writer of this article, in order to bring his /lE 
 profession and practice in harmony, should have taken liN 
 " Battle of Lake Erie," or some similar heading for his ti 
 tie. In a word, it is a high sounding profession of candor fili 
 and fair critical decision, justified by an ex-parte discussionua 
 of one single event, which discussion is treated as if the 
 writer were a special pleader instead of a judge. 
 
 Again — who ever heard an honest summing up of any 
 question, in which the testimony of one side is substan- 
 tially kept out of view. Such has been the case, however, ,ia 
 ill Mr. William A. Duer's upright criticism. While he f 
 parades garbled statements of the evidence against Capt. 
 Elliott before the world, he entirely keeps the testimony in 
 favor of that officer, out of view. Now there are not only 
 more witnesses who testify in behalf of Capt. Elliott, than 
 there are of those who testify against him, but there are 
 better witnesses, and here is every word Mr. Duer has seen 
 fit to say on the subject. After publishing certain affidavits 
 that the friends of Com. Perry had previously given to the 
 world, he adds: — 
 
 " In regard to the evidence adduced by Capt. Elliott 
 which had been sufficiently neutralized or invalidated, it 
 was stated that Lieutenants Smith and Edwards, and Pur- 
 ser Magrath, were deceased — that Lieutenant Conklin and 
 Mr. S. Wardwell Adams were no longer in the navy, and 
 that there was no officer in the American fleet bearing the ' 
 name of W. Nicholls, one of the witnesses of Captain El- 
 liott." 
 
 Here is every syllable Mr. Duer says of the rebutting tes- 
 timony, unless where he uses these words, in stating his 
 case in the preliminary explanations : " Capt. Elliott, how- 
 ever, asserted in a newspaper, that he had in his possession 
 evidence enough to destroy the object of this attack (an at- 
 tack on Capt. Elliott is meant,) and that he had prepared 
 the materials to justify the rank which had been conferred 
 on him, which he only held from publication, from motives 
 of forbearance. Upon this, the brother of the commodore, 
 the present Capt. M. C. Perry, publicly called on Capt. El- 
 liott to exhibit the documents on which he relied for his jus- 
 tification against the charges of Com. Perry ; which was 
 consequently done, and these "evidences" were promptly 
 
 
 
I 
 
 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 35 
 
 let and rebutted by the additional affidavits /rom which we 
 xtract the material facts.'''' 
 
 ■ Any thing can be proved by such means : It is true you 
 lave testimony, but it is completely put to shame by ours, 
 nd here is the latter to prove it ! Had T said any thing 
 bout Capt. Elliott's testimony — had I said any thing about 
 e points in controversy, there might have been some ex- 
 use for this course, did the article profess to be simply an 
 nswer to my accouut of the battle ; but it professes to be 
 review of the hook^ in the first place, and my offence, 
 hen the other side was cornered, and compelled to enter 
 kn a justification, was reduced to one altogether of omis- 
 iion. Silence was my error. I ought, in their view of 
 he matter, to have criminated Capt. Elliott, when 1 had 
 iiore than serious doubts of his guilt, and when the facts 
 vere clearly in an unfit state to be received at all into the 
 )ages of history. 
 
 Here, then, we find two reviewers, Messrs. Mackenzie 
 md Duer, furnishing the evidence of one side of a case 
 )efore them, and supprestsing that of the other. Let us see 
 m what ground the latter justifies his proceeding. It is 
 rue, Mr. Duer does not say of himself, that this person is 
 lead, and no longer in the navy, as a reason for not giving 
 lis testimony ; but he presents the facts so as to offer 
 hem as a general excuse for not showing what these gQn- 
 lemen had said. The idea is very extraordinary — quite 
 is remarkable in its way, as the " enabled" of Mr. Bur- 
 ies — and, properly improved, might allow a critic to dem- 
 onstrate that even AVashington was a desperate adventurer 
 and a man without morals. Of being all this, he was 
 charged in some of the earlier English publications, and 
 et the man who threw these vile aspersions on the Fath- 
 er of his country, outlive all who could deny them, and his 
 single testimony would establish the fact. The notion that 
 a man is no longer an available witness in this case, be- 
 cause he has left the navy, need only to be mentioned, to 
 be lauohed at. 
 
I 
 
 36 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 But, how Stands the fact '? The following witnesses te 
 tify in favor of Capt. Elliott, viz : — 
 
 Lieutenant Smith, 
 " Edwards, 
 
 " Webster, 
 
 " Conklin, 
 
 Purser Magrath, 
 Surgeon Barton, 
 Master's Mate Tatem, 
 Midshipman Cummings, 
 " Montgomery, 
 
 " Adams, 
 
 " Nichols, 
 
 Boatswain Berry, ' 
 
 Captain in the army Brevoort* 
 
 Here then are fourteen witnesses, who speak more 
 less decidedly in favor of Capt. Elliott ; most of them 
 the strongest terms of approbation. Of these fourtee 
 Mr. J) aer mentions only six, at all; less than half, ai 
 two of these six, he excludes on the ground that they we 
 no lono^er in the navy. One, he says, or makes his si* 
 say, the effect being the same, was a man of straw. We 
 admit this shallow reasoning to be sound, why has he n 
 given the testimony of the remaining eiglrt 1 Among the 
 eight alone, it is easy to find evidence, and the best tl 
 case allows, too, to refute some of the strongest facts f 
 which the enemies of Capt. EHiott rely. Doctor Barto 
 as I have shown, is an all important witness ; as are 1 
 Webster, and Capt. Brevoort. 
 
 But is this excuse sincere ? In the preceding senten( 
 to that which I have quoted from Mr. Duer, that gentl 
 man says, " There were many other documents in cc 
 roboration of the preceding (the evidence against Cap 
 Elliott, as given by Mr. Duer) within the cntrol of tl 
 family of Com. Perry, but they chose to publish only tl 
 evidence of those officers who were living, and in tl 
 United States at the time, (the time of the controversy ' 
 1821,) and in adherence to this determination, the evideiK 
 of Lts. Packett and Yarnell, who were both dead, w; 
 withheld." 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 37 
 
 ^ ' Here the witnesses are put into a new category ; those 
 ho vvere out of the United States, at the time, were to 
 excluded ! WelJ, neither Dr. Barton, Capt. Brevoort, 
 or Mr. Cummin^.s, nor several others were out of the 
 nited States, as is seen by their published affidavits. — 
 [essrs. Brevoort, Nicholls, Page, Montgomery, Barton and 
 erry, were all at home, in 11^2!, and all alive. 
 What other evidence has the Perry family, that of Lt. Pack- 
 it excepted, which has not been published 1 On this head, 
 can say that all the testimony, as I understood the mat- 
 r, was sent to me, while the history was in progress, and 
 found nothing in the portions that had not been publish- 
 d, to influence an impartial man, ivhile I did Jin d strong 
 roof to show that the statements of Messrs. Duer and 
 Tackenzie are not accurate. 
 The reader will see the manner in which Mr. Packett's 
 ame has: been introduced. At the proper moment, I v/ill 
 ^uote from this gentleman's testimony to show that it really 
 ontradicts the most serious of the charges against Capt. 
 Elliott. 
 
 There was no such man in the fleet as *' W. Nicholiis, 
 ne of the witnesses of Capt. Elliott." Now it was noto- 
 lous there was an officer of the name of Nicholls in the 
 >omers, and the mistake was simply clerical. The name 
 s D C. Nicholls, and it was shown to the arbitrators 
 liat the two initial letters were written in a manner 
 hat might well mislead a printer, or a copyist. The man 
 va^ there, he testified as stated beyond a doubt, and dis- 
 inctly refuted one of the charges against Capt. Elliott — 
 charge, too, that no one seems disposed to father, as it is 
 »nly given on rumor. To make a point of a mistake like 
 his, argues in itself, a feeble case. 
 
 I have said that there is one exception to the devotedness 
 >f Mr. Duer to the Battle of Lake Erie. He does step 
 Lside, in a note, to say the following, viz : — " Aduding to 
 he carrying of the Detroit and Caledonia the year before, 
 jy hoarding^ from the siiore — which was a military enter- 
 3rize, projected and conducted by Capt. Towson, of the 
 irtillery — but as Lt. Elliott commanded one of the boats, 
 le assumed the whole credit — and Mr. Cooper ratifies his 
 ilaims." A more deliberate falsification of history, or a 
 4 
 
38 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. \ 
 
 more reckless substitution of irresponsible rumors for fact^, 
 cannot be found, than is contained in this paragraph. It ii i 
 out of my power to say whether Mr. Duer did, or did not^ 
 examine the testimony that had been laid before the world, , 
 in connection with this affair ; but I openly challenge him 
 to produce a single published statement to justify his ac- 
 count. In reply to the most unanswerable proofs that 
 Capt. Elliott both planned and conducted this expedition, 
 including an admission of General Towson himself, who 
 only claims to have done that which Mr. Duer ascribes to 
 Capt. Elliott, or command one of the boats, Mr. Stone 
 said that his correspondent (Mr. Duer) had doubtless been 
 misled by statements in various newspapers. I then call- 
 ed on Mr. Stone, three several times, to name one of these 
 various newspapers, which misled Mr. Duer. I cannot 
 discover that the paper has ever been produced, and I now 
 publicly repeat the call. Produce a single newspaper, Mr. , 
 W. A. Duer, or Mr. W. L. Stone, if you can, the New 
 York Commercial Advertiser excepted, and those that have 
 copied this vile calumny, and I will give you, one or both, 
 credit for a sincerity that I now find it impossible to con- 
 cede. A dispute certainly existed between Messrs. El- 
 liott and Towson, in connection with this enterprize ; 
 but it arose solely from the question whether Gen. Towson 
 did or did not act as a captain of artillery in the affair, or 
 as a volunteer; not from any doubt as to the individual 
 who planned and conducted the attack. In this contro- 
 versy, Gen. Towson distinctly attributes the credit of having 
 planned and commanded the expedition to Lt. Elliott, while 
 he claims for himself that of having taken one of the ves- 
 sels. As Mr. Stone has publicly confessed that his corres- 
 pondent had been misled in this note, it is unnecessary 
 to say more than to repeat the call for the proof that even 
 this is true. For myself, I believe Mr. Duer stands alone 
 in saying that Capt. Elliott did not, and that Gen. Towson 
 did plan and conduct this enterprise. If he has any au- 
 thority, however, he can, and probably loill show it. 
 
 2d. — The article is written in ignorance. By this is 
 meant, that Mr. Duer has not sufficient knowledge of 
 ships and sea terms, and of the facts in the case, to write 
 a respectable review, even if he possessed the disposition. 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 39 
 
 One instance will be sufficient to show this truth. The 
 battle was fought with the wind at South East, the English 
 line Ijing-to, heading up about S. S. West, or S. W. and 
 by South. The Americans were edging down with the 
 wind abeam ; or steering South West, a little off, perhaps. 
 Now, in this state of facts, Mr. Duer asks this question, 
 with an air of knowledge and pretension, as if he were a 
 very" Doctor Fanstus, at the points of the compass. — 
 *' When * at this moment the Niagara passed to the west- 
 ward,, a short distance to windward of the Lawrence,' 
 might not the former have sooner reached *' the head of 
 the enemy's line," by passing to eastward, as did the Cale- 
 donia, which, he tells us, " followed" the Niagara to lee- 
 wardy After this exhibition of pueriUty and ignorance. 
 Dr. Duer indulges in some plesantry, evidently much to his 
 own satisfaction. " In order, it would seem, to gain the 
 same point, viz. **the head of the enemy's line," the Niagara 
 kept to windward of the Lawrence, steering wes^er/y," he 
 goes on to add, " and the Caledonia " followed" by keep- 
 ing to leeward, and steering €«s^e/"/?^/" As Dr. Duer — I beg 
 pardon for ever having called so learned a person a simple 
 Mr. — uses the italics, himself, let him have all the credit of 
 them. 
 
 To answer this logic, and mathematics so profound, it 
 will be necessary to quote what the history does say. The 
 three vessels, the Lawrence, Niagara and Caledonia, are 
 in a line ahead, steering south west, or south west and by 
 west, and the Niagara wishes to pass the leading vessel. — 
 "At this moment," says the history, *' the Niagara passed 
 to the westward, a short distance to windward of the Law- 
 rence, steering for the head of the enemy's line, and the 
 Caledonia followed to leeward." That is to say, both the 
 Niagara and Caledonia went to the westward, or towards 
 the head of the enemy's line, which enemy was heading up 
 about S. W. and by South, one going to windward of the 
 Lawrence, and the other following her, but going to leeward 
 of the Lawrence. Out of this statement Dr. Duer makes 
 the following prodigies. He makes the Caledonia go to 
 the eastward,, and yet to leeward^ with the wind at South 
 East; and he makes her'go towards the head of the enemy's 
 line, which was to the westward of her, and yet ^o presisely 
 
40 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 the other way ; or to the eastward! The history no where \ 
 says the Caledonia headed easterly a single point that day,, 
 or at least, during the battle ; nor could she have done so, , 
 without steering directly f}'o?n her enemies, or runninij ; 
 away. Now, as Dr. Duer justly applauds her gallant com- 
 mander, and does attribute this exploit to him, it must be 
 on his own authority ; and the whole shows that his head I 
 was like "a no-man's laud" on the subject of the manoju- • 
 vres of this battle. In point of fact, he knew nothing 
 about them. It is charity to infer ignorance^ as the alter- 
 native is a wilful perversion of facts. 
 
 3d — The article is not sufficiently tenacious of the truth. 
 As this is a grave charge, it shall be distinctly shown. I 
 have given the history of the different controversies. In 
 speaking of that which commenced with a pamphlet against 
 Capt. Elliott, in 1821, Dr. Duer uses this language, viz : 
 •' When the late Commodore Perry" as his equally ^a//«w< 
 and lamented friend the editor informs us, " was shout to 
 sail on the cruise which terminated his valuable life, he 
 requested Com. Decatur to take charge of the following 
 documents, &c." All this is Dr. Duer's, though part is 
 quoted from the prefjice of the pamphlet. The effect is to 
 lead the reader to believe that Com. Decatur, the gallant 
 and lamented friend of Perry, edited the pamphlet, and no 
 doubt such was the intention. As Decatur was killed in 
 March 1820, it will be difficult to show he edited a pamph- 
 let in 1821. In point of fact, he had nothing to do with 
 the publication. 
 
 Again, Dr. Duer foully misquotes me. He gives the 
 following note from the history, in a way to leave nothing 
 but the part I have put in italics. '•'•Popular oinnion^ ichich 
 is too apt to confound distinctions in such matters^ usually 
 attaches the idea of more gallantry to the mere act of 
 passing in a boat from one vessel to another, during the 
 action, than in fighting on a vessel's deck. This was the 
 hast of Perry^s merits, Capt, Elliott was much longer in 
 the same boat, and passed nearly through the whole line 
 twice; and Mr. M'Grath had left the Niagara, for one of 
 the other vessels, in quest of shot, before Capt. Perry quit- 
 ted the Lawi'ence. A boat, also, passed twice, if not three 
 times, from the Ccdedonia to the Trippe^ in the height of 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 41 
 
 the engagement^ and others, quite likely, were sent from 
 vessel to vessel. Capt. Perry's merit was an indomitable 
 resolution not to be conquered, and the manner in which 
 he souo-ht new modes of victory, when the old ones failed 
 him. The position taken by the Niagara at the close of 
 the affair, the fact that he sought the best means of repair- 
 ino- his loss, and the motive with which he passed from 
 vessel to vessel, constitute his claims to admiration. There 
 was no doubt a personal risk in all the boats, but there 
 was personal risk every where on such an occasion." 
 
 Now, of the foregoinor note, the portion in italics, is all 
 that Dr. Duer gives. All that precedes the word " engage- 
 ment" he gives as a continued and connected extract. — 
 Let us'examine this pretended extract, for its motive. It is 
 certain that this garbling is accidental, or it has been done 
 by design. Is it the first? He who reads the secrets of the 
 heart alone can say, except through conjecture. When 
 it is remembered, however, that the article was intended 
 as an attack on the historian, is it reasonable to suppose 
 any man in his senses would thus mutilate a passage ac- 
 cidentally 1 To me it seems to be intended as a summary 
 of the note, rather than as a quotation, though given as the 
 latter; and if so, there can be no question that the mutila- 
 tion has been made understandingly. When, however, 
 we come to see that the real design of the historian is given 
 in the closing sentences of the note, and that these senten- 
 ces are altogether omitted^ can there be a doubt as to the 
 intention 1 This, after all, is the best test we can apply. 
 If an author be deliberately misquoted, as to meanings it 
 leaves a suspicion ; and, having given the note in full, with 
 Dr. Duer's mutilations, I leave the reader to judge for 
 himself 
 
 , The next instance I shall cite leans still more strongly 
 towards intentional deception. All the three writers I am 
 now answering, or Messrs. Burges, Duer and Mackenzie, 
 contend that Capt. Elliott did not bring the Niagara into 
 close action at all, but that she was first carried into close 
 action by Capt. Perry, when he got on board of her. I 
 maintain that Capt Elliott took the Niagara into as close 
 action, or about as near, as Capt. Perry ever carried the 
 Lawrence, though the latter subsequently carried the Ni- 
 4*' 
 
43 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 ag-ara much nearer, when he cut the line. Out of this 
 last circumstance, I suppose all the honest misunderstand- 
 ing on this point which has occurred, to ha?e taken its rise. 
 The facts shall be explained in their place ; here, I propose 
 only to substantijate my second charge against Dr. Duer. 
 Speaking of the danger which existed at different points in 
 the battle, this gentleman says that " two places were ex- 
 empted from the ubiquity of danger, and both happened to 
 be successively occupied by Capt. Elliott — first on board 
 the boat, when he was passing up and down the line ' du- 
 ring the height of the engagement' in consequence of his 
 having volunteered to brinsf the distant vessels into action ; 
 and second, on hoard the Niagara^ until Capt. Perry board- 
 ed her, and brought her within reach of the enemy'' s gunsJ*^ 
 
 I will ask the reader to observe that, in this extract. Dr. 
 Duer comments on his own misquotations, applying the 
 words " the height of the engagement," to Capt. Elliott, 
 when, as written by me, they apply only to the boat which 
 passed between the Caledonia and the Trippe. When it 
 is remembered that the charge intended to be made out 
 against me was a wish to glorify Capt. Elliott, at the ex- 
 pense of Capt. Perry, this false application of words plain- 
 ly written, and as plainly printed, has a very unpleasant as- 
 pect. But this is not my point. In the extract, my re- 
 viewer distinctly asserts that the Niagara icas not within 
 reach of the enemy''s guns, until Capt. Perry carried her 
 there. This, be it remembered, is substantially the Bur- 
 ges-Mackenzie-Duer theory, although Capt. Mackenzie 
 may happen to know too much to insist on it literally. — 
 He would probably say she was at long shot. 
 
 Now, Mr. Duer, maintaining this theory, cites the pres- 
 ent Commodore Turner, >i ho commanded the Caledonia, 
 as a witness. This gallant officer says in his affidavit — 
 *' The Niagara might have relieved the Lawrence from the 
 Queen Charlotte, if she had made proper exertions to 
 bring her to close action : but, by keeping her main-top- 
 sail aback and her jib brailed up, she kept at too great a 
 distance from the enemy to do him any material injury, 
 and sustained scarcely any herself until the Commodore 
 took command of her, who immediately bore up and pas- 
 sed through the enemy's line, firing both his broadsides 
 
 !l 
 
 ! 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 43 
 
 with such tremendous effect, as compelled him instantly 
 to surrender. 
 
 ^^Itwas the general opinion of the American officers^ and 
 expressed with much indignation^ that Capt^ Eilliott did not 
 do his duty in the battle ; inasmuch as he did not bring his 
 vessel, AS soon as he might have done, itito close action, 
 which circumstance only^ made the result of the battle for 
 a short time doubtful. Soon after the victory, Capt. Elli- 
 ott's conduct was spoken of, as well in Gen. Harrison's 
 army as in the fleet, with great disapprobation and cen- 
 sure," (fee. &LC. 6lc. 
 
 The foregoing stands in the affidavit, as I have given it ; 
 tlie remainder being unnecessary for the point before us. 
 Dr. Duer gives the substance of Mr, Turner's affidavit, un- 
 til he reaches " She kept at too great a distance from the 
 enemy &c." vv^hen he puts in marks of quotation, and 
 professes to give his ivords. The quotation goes on much 
 farther than I have given it above, witli the exception that 
 the sentence I give in italics is wholly omitted ! Now this 
 is done without any mark, or sign, to indicate the fact. The 
 words " Soon after the victory" follow, in the next sen- 
 tence, the words " instantly to surrender," precisely as if 
 they had been so given by Mr. Turner. The paragraph 
 which exists in the orig-inal is sunk, Dr. Duer oivinii' the 
 whole as belonging to one and the same paragraph. Let 
 us search for a motive for all this. 
 
 Dr. Duer, it has been shown, maintains that the Niaga- 
 ra was not within range of shot, until Capt Perry reached 
 her. His object was clearly to criminate Capt. Elliott, and 
 why should he drop this particular sentence, from his quo- 
 tation? Every syllable of it, told in favor of his theory, 
 but the words " as soon as he might have done,^^ and they 
 flatly contradict it. Without these awkward and tell-tale 
 words, the passage would read " inasmuch as he did not 
 bring his vessel into close action," which was precisely 
 what Dr. Duer was contendino for. But the words " as 
 soon as he might have done" were there, and they com- 
 pletely alter the sense. To suppose that a sentence which 
 commenced a paragraph was dropped accidentally, is high- 
 ly unreasonable, and if we look at the passage, we see that 
 Dr. Duer could not quote it, without showing that his own 
 witness contradicts him. He chose, therefore, to avoid it. 
 
44 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 One more instance on this point must suffice. The 
 charge against Com. Elliott, as indeed may be seen 
 bj the extract just given from Mr. Turner's affidavit, is 
 that lie did not close and assist the Lawrence, at a peri- 
 od of the action when he lay astern of the Caledonia, with 
 his main-top-sail to the mast, and his jib brailed. Unless 
 explained, such a circumstance might justly criminate any 
 man. But Com. Elliott says, and I shall presently show 
 that he says it truly, that his senior officer, Capt. Perry, 
 had given him a station in the line, astern of the Caledo- 
 nia, that he enjoined it on him to keep that station^ and it 
 was for him who gave the order, to take the responsibility 
 of changing his own line of battle, if circumstances re- 
 quired a change. This might have been done by signal, 
 or by sending a boat, and, as Capt. Perry who was in the 
 Lawrence, himself, knew how much she had suffered, a fact 
 Capt. Elliott could not know, except by conjecture, it was 
 precisely the duty a commander-in-chief was present to 
 perform. Com. Elliott further affirms, that only one sig- 
 nal was made by Capt. Perry, while on board the Law- 
 rence, which was the signal " to engage as you come up, 
 every one against his opponent, in the line as before desig- 
 nated.'''' This signal, then, confirmed the injunction to 
 keep the line, and insomuch, was an order to the Niagara 
 not to pass the Caledonia. 
 
 Now" the point before us relates to these signals. Capt. 
 Perry might have made a second or a third signal, coun- 
 termanding the effect of the first, and which would have 
 obliged Capt. Elliott to pass the Caledonia much earlier 
 than he actually did. On this head, Dr. Duer quotes — re- 
 member, he pretends to quote the very words — from the af- 
 fidavit of Dr. Usher Parsons, in the following language : 
 *' Complained (meaning the wounded officers of the Law- 
 rence) that the Niagara did not come up to her station and 
 close with the Queen Charlotte, although frequently or- 
 dered hy signal^ &c. &c." Here, then. Dr. Parsons was 
 made to swear that the wounded officers complained that 
 Capt. Elliott disregarded signals frequently made — reiter- 
 ated orders in fact — to close. 1 knew no such signals had 
 been made, and I confess, as little importance as I attach 
 to the affidavit of Dr. Parsons, which shall be analvzed in 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 45 
 
 Its place, I was not prepared to find him making a state- 
 ment like this. Turning to the affidavit itself, 1 found he 
 swears to nothing of the sort, the whole being merely one 
 of Dr. Diier's quotations — a very difterent thing, as has 
 been already shown, from the actual words pretended to 
 be given. What Dr. Parsons really says is this — " Com- 
 plamed that the JNiagara (commanded by Capt. Elliott) did 
 not come up to her station and close with the Queen Char- 
 lotte, although he had been ordered by signal ; and this 
 complaint was frequent li/ repeated by them, &.C-" 
 
 Here we see that the "frequently" applies to the com- 
 plaints, and not to the signals. As to the signal actually 
 given, I have quoted it verbatim, as sworn to in terms, by 
 the Perry witnesses, and as, doubtless, it was given ; and 
 this ordered Capt. Elliott to keep the line, and not to break 
 it. There is no doubt that this was the legitimate and obvi- 
 I ous meaning of the only signal given. 
 
 Thus we find Dr. Duer again misquoting, in a new 
 form. This one point, if Dr. Duer's quotation were ac- 
 curate, would at once condemn Capt. Elliott, and justly 
 place his life in jeopardy ; but the quotation is inaccurate. 
 Some persons may think this misplacing of the word " fre- 
 quently" was accidental ; it certainly may have been, but 
 when a man sits down to attack others, as Dr. Duer has 
 assailed both Com. Elliott and myself, there is a profound 
 moral obligation to use at least ordinary care in such mat- 
 ters, and ordinary care would have prevented any such 
 mistake. Besides, no mistake is made by either Dr. Du- 
 er, or Capt. Mackenzie, in my favor ; Avhereas each will 
 probably be glad, when t have done with him, to take ref- 
 uge in the allegation of having made many mistakes against 
 me ! I pass to the next head. 
 
 4th. The article lays down positions which its own wit- 
 nesses refute. Two instances have just been given. Dr. 
 Duer contends Capt. Elliott did not bring the Niagara 
 within i reach of the enemy's shot. Capt. Turner says 
 fault was found with him, because he did not come inio 
 close action, as soon as he might have done. No man in 
 his senses would use those words concerning one who did 
 not come into close action at all. Mr. Turner has other 
 testimony to the same point, which I reserve for Captain 
 
46 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 Mackenzie. Dr. Duer says Dr. Parsons swears that the 
 wounded officers complained that Capt. ElHott disregarded 
 signals frequentli/ made ; Dr. Parsons's own affidavit con- 
 tradicts the statement. Other proof, and plenty of it too, 
 might be adduced on this point, but it would make this 
 pamphlet too long. 
 
 5th. It was written with a direct intention to deceive, or 
 with a carelessness of facts that is but little less culpable, 
 when it is remembered that character was connected with 
 its statements. The truth of this charge has already been 
 shown. Why was the closing part of the note about the 
 boats omitted, if the intention was to deal fairly. Let us 
 examine the question. 
 
 Capt. Perry passed from one vessel to another, in a boat, 
 during the battle. Many persons — most persons perhaps 
 — fancied this a heroic act, per se^ without reference to the 
 motive. To me it did not thus seem. I knew that boats 
 were almost always in motion, in general actions at sea, 
 and I believed, and still believe that Capt. Perry probiibly 
 ran less personal risk, while in that boat, than he ran at 
 any other period of the battle. The fire from the enemy 
 had greatly lessened at the time, he was three hundred 
 yards from their guns, even according to Capt. Macken- 
 zie, and was crossing the range of their aim. It is scarce- 
 ly probable a single gun was trained on the boat, more es- 
 pecially as Capt. Perry wa^ dressed in a round-about, and 
 could not be recognised. But, admitting that the act, ^er 
 se, was what has been pretended — on what principle is 
 Capt. Perry to be lauded more than others who did the 
 same thing 1 Mr. Magrath had gone from the Niagara to 
 the Lawrence in a boat, before Capt. Perry went from the 
 Lawrence to the Niagara. Capt. Elliott pulled along the 
 whole line, nearly twice, in the same boat, and the six men 
 who composed the crew incurred the risks of all these 
 movements ; that of Capt. Perry's, and those of Capt. El- 
 liott's. Other boats passed from^vessel to vessel. It has 
 been said that Capt. Elliott was not exposed in the boat, 
 the same as Capt. Perry. The note in the history says 
 nothing about this fact, for the object being merely to di- 
 rect the public mind to the real merit of Perry's conduct, 
 it was unnecessary ; but, in point of fact, I believe Capt. 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 47 
 
 Elliott took the boat msiWe the Lawrence, while going as- 
 tern, and he was in uniform. I believe this to be the fact, 
 because Com. Elliott distinctly affirms it, and I have found 
 [his statements of the battle mainly corroborated by the tes- 
 timony ; because the late Capt. Stevens admitted to me 
 personally, that Capt. Elliott pulled alongside the Trippe, 
 which was under the fire of grape at the time ; and be- 
 cause the present Capt. Montgomery, and sailing master 
 Tatem, both officers of the Niagara, say that from the rel- 
 ative positions of the two brigs, at the time, they think 
 iCapt. Elliott must have gone inside. Now if the claims of 
 Perry be reduced to the mere gallantry of exposing his per- 
 son in the boat, his friends cannot deny thaf others must 
 share the credit with him. What is his exploit compared 
 to Capt. Piatt's on Lake Champlain, who pulled about un- 
 der the fire of a ship like the Confiance, earlij in the ac- 
 Yiow,and had a twenty-four pound shot actually pass through 
 his boat. If this act is to make a hero, there are other he- 
 roes besides P.orry ; and better heroes, too, if quality is to 
 be estimated by risks. But I give Perry high credit for 
 this particular act, though it is altogether in connection 
 with his motive for chanffins: his vessel. It was a noble 
 thing to fight on board one vessel until she was a wreck, 
 and then to seek another to struggle on for victory — but it 
 was a far inferior deed simply to pass from one vessel to an- 
 other in a boat. Now, I give Perry full credit for the first 
 in the note ; it was in truth the object of the note, and I 
 had a right to demand if my note were quoted at all, that 
 it should be quoted in reference to tliis object, that the 
 reader might judge for himself. Dr. Duer has not done 
 me this simple justice ; besides mutilating the part he does 
 quote, making me impute acts to Capt. Elliott that I do 
 not impute to him, he omits entirely the close of the note, 
 thus misleading the reader as to its drift. If this were 
 not a direct intention to deceive, what was it 1 — it was cer- 
 tainly a carelessness of facts, that, under the circumstan- 
 ces, was scarcely less culpable. 
 
 t put also the omission of the pointed part of Mr. Tur- 
 ners's affidavit, the insertion of the word " frequently" into 
 that of Dr. Parsons, in a place where it was not used, thus 
 essentially altering the sense, and all the other instances 
 
48 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 of departure from facts that I have cited, most especially'' 
 that where Dr. Duer affirms that Gen. Towson planned! 
 and conducted the enterprise in 1812, into this same cate- 
 gory. I might increase the Ust, but enough has been shown i 
 to estabUsh the point, which completes my case as against t 
 this critic. In this instance, however, as in that of Mr. 
 Burges's, I shall answer most of his testimony and state- 
 ments, in answering those of Capt. Mackenzie, to whose; 
 Biography of Perry I now come. 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie is, in some respects at least, an antago- 
 nist worthy of an old sailor, in a controversy of this sort. 
 I am aware that Dr. Duer was once in the navy, but I 
 doubt if he ever knew the names of the Tunning gear of an 
 Albany sloop. Capt. Mackenzie certainly knows too 
 much of a ship to make the mistakes into which my 
 other critics have fallen. 
 
 Against Capt. Mackenzie's Biography I make the fol- 
 lowing objections. 1st, It is not what a biography ought 
 to be, but is an ex parte statement of facts, keeping the most 
 and the best evidence out of view. 2d, It cooly accuses 
 Capt. Elliott, whose name is so closely interwoven with 
 the life of his subject, of acts, the unequivocal evidence 
 of the falsehood of which accusations, was in the posses- 
 sion of Capt. Mackenzie when he brought them, and this 
 in a form that renders it difficult to believe he did not see 
 the whole case; 3d — he contradicts his own witnesses;-' 
 4th — he constantly contradicts the best evidence the case 
 allows, on altogether insufficient grounds ; 5th — he is 
 grossly and absurdly illogical ; 6th — he has manifested an 
 indifference to justice, wliich is discreditable to any writer, 
 and which approaches an indifference to truth. ' 
 
 I come now to the proofs of what I have sp.id. The 
 charges are serious, and should be clearly established. Of 
 my ability to make them out, however, I entertain no more 
 doubt, than I feel what must be the consequences to '! 
 Capt. Mackenzie, in the minds of all clear headed and 
 upright men. This controversy was not of my seeking ; 
 for years have I rested under the imputations that these 
 persons have brought against me, and I now strike a blow 
 in behalf of truth, not from any deference to a public 
 opinion that, in my judgment, has not honesty enough to 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 49 
 
 feel much interest in the exposure of duplicity and artifice, 
 but that my children may point to the facts, with just 
 pride that they had a father who dared to stem popular 
 prejudice, in order to write truth, A great clamor has been 
 raised against Com. Elliott, under the influence of party 
 Sfeeling, and while one half tlie nation has been made to 
 [immolate him, without examination, the other has not 
 I shown a disposition to defend. I cannot see why others 
 smisrht not have detected the character of most of the evi- 
 dence on which this has been done, as well as myself. It 
 was accessible, vulnerable in all its parts, and there was a 
 higii moral necessity for examining previously to condemn- 
 ing. The mighty public of this great country, which is 
 but another word for the republic, did not feel this neces- 
 ;sity, and I do not hesitate to say it has decided without 
 inquiry. The injury done Capt. Elliott is not easily mcas- 
 jured. That he is now suffering under the effects of this 
 i precipitate judgment, in more ways than one, I hold to be 
 {evident; but he is fortunate that he has escaped so lis^htly. 
 {Let it be imagined, for a moment, that he had assumed the 
 jresponsibility of executing three men without a trial, and 
 jthen fancy the result ! His life, justly or unjustly, would 
 I have been the forfeit. Such are the penalties of error ; and 
 j every citizen should remember that while there is nothing 
 t which is more formidable, which more closely assimilates 
 ' men to their Creator, than a just and virtuous public opinion, 
 there is nothing more miserably contemptible, in a moral 
 point of view at least, and which more closely assimilates 
 them to the lowest beings of darkness, than when they join 
 in supporting an unjust clamor, equally without examina- 
 tion, and without remorse. I say this with emphasis, for I 
 believe Com. Elliott has been, in many respects at least, a 
 greatly ill used man, and I never expect to receive the 
 i atonement for the wrong that has been done myself in 
 [i connection with this affair. Calumny may be refuted and 
 rebuked; but it is never wholly effaced. 
 
 No man has had a larger share in injuring both Com. 
 I Elliott and myself than Capt. Mackenzie, and I now pro- 
 j pose to prove how loosely and falsely he has endeavored 
 to rob us of our characters. 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie's principal charge against me was that 
 5 
 
50 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 I had endeavored to build up the reputation of Com. Elliott, 
 at the expense of that of Com. Peny. This charge of 
 itself, would not amount to much, as jjistice migJit, and in 
 some measure does require such a course, in this very dis- 
 cussion ; though it did not in the history I have written ; 
 but Capt. Mackenzie leaves the impression that I have done 
 this with dishonest views. So far as I am concerned, 
 Capt. Mackenzie has respected appearances a little ; but 
 as regards Com. Elliott, he has thrown them aside alto- 
 gether, and I have no hesitation in saying has written of 
 that officer sundry as atrocious libels — 1 use the word un- 
 derstandingly, and mean untenable calumnies — as are 
 easily to be found coming from any man who has claims 
 to be deemed a gentleman. Com. Elliott is living, and 
 might defend himself; but 1 can scarcely touch the subject 
 at all, without vindicating that officer, as it might be inci- 
 dentally, from some of the grossest of these aspersions. — 
 As my aim will be to show how utterly worthless is this 
 biography of Perry, so far as it relates to the battle of Lake 
 Erie, any thing that proves its true character forms a legiti- 
 mate part of my argument, whether it .strictly applies to 
 my own account of the events or not. In this way, then, 
 I shall treat the subject. To come to the points : 
 
 1st. Capt. Mackenzie's book is not what a biography 
 ought to be, but is an ex parte statement of facts, keeping 
 the 7nost and best evidence entirely out of view. 
 
 The only material accusation against Com. Elliott, in 
 relation to the battle, was that he kept the Niagara too long 
 astern of the Caledonia, and that he did not close early 
 enough effectually to succour the Lawrence. Messrs. 
 Burges, Duer and Mackenzie add to this, that Capt. Elliott 
 did not bring the Niagara into close action at all ; though 
 neither Com. Perry, nor the best of his witnesses, took that 
 ground. Now, in the nature of things, the officers of the 
 Niagara were the best witnesses of Capt. Elliott's conduct, 
 in such circumstances, that the case afforded. They surely 
 knew ivhat the vessel did ; whether she were under fire or 
 not ; what injuries she received, and vUio was hurt, better 
 than those who were enveloped in smoke at a distance. 
 Ca^teris paribus, they were, as a rule, the best witnesses of 
 the facts. But other things were not equal ; they were 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 51 
 
 essentially the best witnesses on the score of intelligence, 
 and on the score of feeling. It was a fact that could not 
 well escape one as familiar with the service by association, 
 as myself, that, as a whole, the officers of the Niagara 
 were the superiors of the officers of the Lawrence, in the 
 way of intelligence. On this point, though it is entitled 
 to consideration, I am not induced to lay much stress ; still I 
 hear from all quarters, that three of the officers of the Law- 
 rence, who are among Capt, Perry's m(;st prominent Avit- 
 , nesses, are or were men of capacities so low, as to render 
 their opinions of very little value. It is a fact more avail- 
 able as an argument, and one that I allowed to have its just 
 influence, that the officers of the Lawrence had not the 
 experience, of the officers of the Niagara. On board the 
 latter, in addition to her lieutenants and master, were 
 Messrs. Magrath and Brevoort, the purser, and a captain in 
 the army acting as marine officer. Mr. Magrath had been 
 a lieutenant in the navy, and had resigned only four years 
 j before, and would have been the senior of Perry, himself, 
 had he retained his commission. This gentleman was a 
 man of talents and a capital seaman. In the latter, or, 
 ' indeed in the other capacity, he probably had no superior 
 in that squadron. Capt. Brevoort, I believe had been a 
 i sailor in youth — at all events, whether actually accustomed 
 1 to the sea, or not, he was accustomed to the lake. 1 saw 
 him myself, in 1809, on Lake Erie, in command of the 
 Adams, a brig belonging to the war department — the same 
 that the British captured and called the Detroit — and I 
 heard that he was several years employed in this duty, 
 being, at the time, a lieutenant in the army. This gen- 
 tleman was put in the squadron on account of his experi- 
 ence. 
 
 Now, were there merely the preponderance in favor of 
 the officers of the Niagara, which the characters, and ex- 
 perience of these two gentlemen would give, it would be 
 sufficient, and would be so adjudged by any court in Chris- 
 tendom ; but there are still other circumstances to turn the 
 scales more in favor of their testimony. 
 
 The officers of the Lawrence — or some of them — con- 
 tradict their commander, and of course each other, while 
 those of the Niagara, in the main, agree. Then, on the 
 
52 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 score of feeling, the circumstances are in favor of the offi- 
 cers of the Niagara. The Lawrence, after suifering very 
 severely struck ; and this in a battle, in which all the 
 enemy were subsequently captured, and the Lawrence 
 herself retaken. Whatever may have been the gallantry 
 of her crew, and the circumstances which led to such a 
 result, the 10th Sept, as regards the Lawrence, was a 
 defeat. It is easy to see that men so circumstanced might 
 not be rigidly just. On the other hand, the Niagara was 
 the principal agent in turning the fortunes of the day. It 
 mattered not, to her officers, whether this were done under 
 Perry or Elliott; they were actively employed. The 
 Niagara, too, met with a heavier comparative loss in this 
 battle, than was sustained by any American vessel in that 
 war, the Lawrence and Essex excepted. She had not 
 been engaged in child's play, at all ; and there was noth- 
 ing particularly to disturb the feelings of her crew. As 
 between them, and the crew of the Lawrence, the question 
 of feeling was altogether in their favor. Though a dispute 
 existed between them and the people of the other brig — 
 this question was strictly between Perry and Elliott. Both 
 had been their commanders in this very battle, and it is 
 not easy to suppose, that, among all the brave men in the 
 Niao-ara, men who were the near witnesses of that which 
 passed^ one could not be found to say so, if he fancied that 
 Capt. Elliott had disgraced his brig, and Perry alone had 
 saved them all from reproach. 
 
 In whatever way, then, we view this point, the officers 
 of the Niasrara were better witnesses, than those of the 
 Lawrence. In addition to this, they materially outnumber 
 them. 
 
 In the face of these facts, Capt. Mackenzie suppresses 
 the testimony in favor of Capt. Elliott, while he lays 
 before the world, as much of that against him as suited his 
 own purposes. If this be not reducing history to an eaj 
 parte statement, it is not easy to say what it is. I shall 
 not dwell further on this point, here, as its effects will be 
 noticed as I proceed. 
 
 2d. Itcooly accuses Capt. Elliott of acts, the unequivo- 
 cal evidence of the untruth of which was in the possession 
 of Capt. Mackenzie when he brought the accusations ; 
 
BRATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 53 
 
 and this in a form that renders it difficult to believe he 
 did not see the whole case. 1 am conscious this is a very 
 grave charge ; but it shall be clearly made out. 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie justly represents Com. Elliott as com- 
 plaining of the official report of Capt. Perry. He certainly 
 does insist that the Niagara ought to have been put in 
 close action^ at an hour earlier than ^ past 2, the time 
 when Perry says she succeeded in closing. The fact is 
 immaterial to the present point. It is admitted, however; 
 that Com Elliott does and did complain that injustice was 
 done to his brig and himself, in this particular. In allusion 
 to these complaints, and some effi)rts made by Capt. Elliott 
 to get the report altered, Capt- Mackenzie says in a note, 
 pages 20—21, Vol. 2d, Biog.— 
 
 I " After such objections to the official report, and such 
 
 effi^rts to procure it to be made more favorable to him, it 
 
 is singular to find Capt. Elliott, before the Court of Inquiry 
 
 into his conduct in 1815, when the British official account 
 
 I and the sentence of the court-martial on Commodore Bar- 
 
 i clay had made him appear so much more disadvantage- 
 
 \ ously, sirenuously endeavoring to substantiate this very 
 
 \ report^ and making a question as to its accuracy a 
 
 LEADING ONE TO ALMOST EVERY WITNESS." 
 
 Let us look at the character of this charge. It distinctly 
 accuses Capt. Elliott of seeking refuge, before the Court of 
 Inquiry, against the supposed English accusations, in Capt. 
 Perry's official report, after he had decried that report^ and 
 denied its accuracy. This charge embraces several va- 
 rieties of moral turpitude. It is virtually accusing Capt. 
 Elliott of deliberate falsifications of the truth, by seeking, 
 refuge in contradictory facts, as he found it convenient ; 
 it is a charge of a meanness so atrocious as to render him 
 unworthy of the commission he holds, if true ; and it leaves 
 the inference that the British court put his conducting, 
 worse point of view than any American court, without 
 mentioning the fact that even Capt. Perry's loitnesscs ex- 
 onerate Capt. Elliott from this imaginary iniputation. — 
 (The two first accusations, however, form the gist of the 
 calumny. 
 
 fSo far from Capt. Elliott's having been guilty of the 
 glaring deception and degrading meanness with which 
 
 d*- 
 
54 BATTI-E OF LAKE ERtlT* 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie has thus openly charged him, in a book 
 deliberately written, and ^v^dely circulated, if not consci- 
 entiously prepared ; there is the clearest evidence of its 
 untruth, and evidence that was in Capt. Mackenzie's pos- 
 session at the time he wrote ; evidence that he ought to 
 have consulted, and which he has given the public reason 
 to suppose he did consult. 
 
 I write with an exemplified copy of the rkcord of this 
 Court before me. This record has been repeatedly pub- 
 lished, and if Capt. Mackenzie does not refer to it, in this 
 very note of his, to what evidence does he refer? It is the 
 only proof in existence, of the questions put by Capt. Elliott, 
 while it is complete on that head. I now extract from it, 
 every question that this officer asked the witnesses, viz — 
 
 Lt, Nelson Webster— April 2^th, 1815. 
 
 Bi/ Capt. Elliott. — "Did the Niagara at any time, during 
 the action, attempt to make off from the British fleet 1" 
 
 *' What was the distance from the Lawrence to the Niag- 
 ara, when the firing commenced from the enemy V 
 
 *' What was the situation of both fleets when the action 
 commenced on our part 1 and what time did I order the 
 Caledonia out of the line 1 and how soon afterwards did I 
 place my vessel ahead of the Lawrence ? and what appear- 
 ed to be the situation of the British fleet 1" 
 
 •' Was not my helm up, and the Niagara standing di- 
 rectly for the enemy's fleet, when Capt. Perry came on 
 board 1" 
 
 " What was the situation of the srun-boats when I left 
 the Niagara, and how were they disposed of when I reach- 
 ed the head of the enemy's line with them ?" 
 
 " How did the Lawrence bear of the Niagara when Capt, 
 Perrv came on board, and what distance was she from the 
 Niao-aral" 
 
 Lt. Yarnall — one of the Perry witnesses 
 
 By Capt. Elliott. — Did the Niagara, at any time du- 
 ring the action, attempt to make off from the British fleet ? 
 
 Lt. Yarnell. " No." (This was the strongest witness 
 a^atnsf Capt Elliott.) 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. OO 
 
 *' What was the distance from the Lawrence to ihe Ni- 
 ftgani, when the firing commenced from the enemy 1" 
 
 '• What was the situation of the gun-boats when I left 
 fhe Niagara, and how were they disposed of when I reach- 
 d the head of the enemy's line with them 1" 
 
 " What was the estabhshed order of the battle, and is 
 the sketch noAv shown you a correct one V 
 
 "What were the observations of Lts. Turner and Holdup, 
 when speaking to you of the actiou ?" 
 
 " When I was passing the Lawrence in the boat did you 
 [Qot come to the gangway, and ask me to bring the boat 
 along side, as you were sinking 1" 
 
 " Did vou not on the return of the fleet to Erie, discov- 
 ;ring that there was an altercation between Capts. Perry 
 ind Elliott, meet Midshipman Page on the beach, and &ay 
 o him that there was the deuce to pay about the action, but 
 that as for your part, you had always given each of those 
 )fficers an equal share of credit V 
 
 " How was the wind from the beginning to the end of 
 .:he action V # 
 
 Lt. Webster — re-examined — April25th, 1815. 
 
 J Bi/ Capt. Elliott, — *' How far was the Caledonia from; 
 j;he Niagara, from the commencement of the enemy's fire, 
 until 1 ordered her out of the* line V 
 
 " What was the distance from the Lawrence to the 
 Niagara, from the commencement of the action until I or- 
 iered the Caledonia out of the line ? and did not the ene- 
 my'' s shot take effect in a few minutes after the action 
 began, upon the Niagara* s spars and rigging V 
 
 Answer. — "At no time during that period were they 
 more than two hundred yards apart — the enemy's shot 
 ;ook effect very soon, and shot away one of the fore-top- 
 mast back-stays." 
 
 *' Did not the enemy's fire appear to be directed at the 
 Niagara's spars and rigging V 
 
 " What distance was I from the Lawrence when I pass- 
 ed her gaining the head of the line 1" 
 
 " Just before you were wounded, what was the relative 
 positions of the Lawrence and Niagara 1" 
 
 " What damage did the Niagara sustain in the action 1'* 
 
tJ\J tiJX L X Ijti yjr j^Axvx^i jc<xvii:<* 
 
 *' Was the Niagara at any time during the action, fromi 
 half to three quarters of a mile on the weather bow of the 
 Lawrence after I ordered the Caledonia out of the line V* 
 
 *' Did you observe the enemy's ship Queen Charlottet 
 bear up and run away from the Niagara, and if so, when 1" 
 
 Midshipman Montgomery^ 
 
 By Capt. Elliott. — " Did the Niagara, at any time 
 during the action, attempt to make her escape from the 
 British fleet ?" 
 
 " What was the distance from the Lawrence to the Ni- 
 agara, when the enemy's fire commenced 1 and what dis- 
 tance was the Lawrence, Caledonia and Niagara, from 
 the enemy's fleet?" 
 
 " What was the distance from the Lawrence to the Ni- 
 agara when we commenced our fire 1 and what distance 
 was each of those vessels from the enemy's fleet V 
 
 " What was the distance from the Lawrence to the Cale- 
 donia, and from the Caledonia to the Niagara? and whati 
 distance was each of ttose vessels from the enemy's fleet,, 
 when I ordered the Caledonia to bear up and let me pass 
 her?" 
 
 " When I ordered the Caledonia to bear up, where did I 
 place the Niagara,, and where was she when Capt. Perry 
 came on board ?" 
 
 *' When Capt Perry came on board the Niagara, did he 
 not find her helm up, and that vessel standing direct for the 
 enemy's ship Detroit?" 
 
 "What was the situation of the gun-boats when I left 
 the Niagara ? and how were they disposed of when brought 
 to the head of the enemy's line?" 
 
 "When I hailed the gun-boats, did I not order them to 
 make sail and keep close under my stern ?" 
 
 " What was the established order of battle, and is the 
 sketch now shown you a correct view of the situation of 
 both fleets at the time stated ?" 
 
 " When Capt. Perry came on board the Niagara, was 
 she half a mile on the weather bow of the Lawrence ?" 
 
 " Did the Lawrence and Caledonia, at any time in the 
 action, bear up, and leave the Niagara with her main4op- 
 sail aback, or leave her on a wind .?" 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 57 
 
 *' Did Capt. Elliott or Capt. Perry bring the Niagara 
 into close action V^ 
 
 Answer. — " The Niagara had closed with the enemy 
 some time before Capt. Perry came on board V 
 
 " Did not the wind die away almost to a calm when the 
 action was pretty well on 1" 
 
 " Did the enemy's ship, Queen Charlotte bear up to 
 avoid the Niagara's fire, and if so, at what time V 
 
 Mr. Adams. 
 
 By Capt. Elliott. — '■'■Did the Laiorence and Caledonia^ 
 at any time during the action^ run doivn within musket shot 
 of the enemy, and leave the Niagara firing at the ene7ny''s 
 smaller vessels at a distanceV 
 
 3Ir. Tatenu 
 
 By Capt. Elliott. — " What conversation passed be- 
 tween me and Capt. Perry when I returned on board the 
 Niagara V* 
 
 " How near was Capt. Elliott to the Lawrence when 
 passing herl" 
 
 " Was the Niagara three quarters of a mile on the bow 
 of the Lawrence, when Capt. Perry came on board V 
 
 *' Was not the helm up, and the Niagara bearing down 
 on the enemy when Capt. Perry came on board '?" 
 
 *' Had you been an officer on board the Lawrence, would 
 you have supposed there was any deficiency in the conduct 
 of Capt. Elliott in coming to the relief of the Lawrence V 
 
 Mr. Cummings — April 2^th, 1815. 
 No questions put by Capt. Elliott. 
 
 Lt. Forrest^ of Lawrence, 
 No questions by Capt. Elliott. 
 
 This closes the record, every question put by Capt. 
 Elliott, having been here given. Here, then, is unanswer- 
 able proof that Capt. Elliott has not been guilty of the 
 falsehood and meanness ascribed to him by Capt. Mac- 
 kenzie. So far from making the truth of Capt. Perry's 
 report "a leading one (question) to almost every witness," 
 he asks it of no witness at all. On the contrary, many of 
 
5^ BATTLE OF LAKE ERifi. 
 
 Oi 
 
 his questions, most of those that refer to the distance, one' 
 or tv/o of which I have put in itahcs, have a direct andi 
 obvious tendency to show that the part of the report oi^ 
 which Capt. Elhott complained, viz — that he did not get^ 
 into close action until J past two, was inaccurate. Instead! 
 of falling back on Capt. Perry's report, then, to cover him- 
 self, Capt Elliott, by implication, would seem rather tO( 
 question its accuracy in these very interrogatories. ' 
 
 So much for Capt. Mackenzie's accuracy, in a grave<' 
 matter materially affecting character. Did he mean to: 
 utter falsehood, to criminate Capt. Elliott withont cause,! 
 with all the evidence in his own hands'? A severe judge 
 might hold him to this issue, and it would greatly em- { 
 barrass this accusing gentleman to escape the conse-J 
 quences ; but I have a little charity for him. I think Capt. 
 Mackenzie's mind to be vejy singularly constituted, and 
 that he did not mean all he has so clearly said. So many 
 instances of this peculiarity of moral conformation have 
 forced themselves on my notice, as to leave no doubt of its 
 existence. Capt. Mackenzie can only see one side of a j 
 question. He is a man of prejudice and denunciation, and 
 he accuses, less under evidence, than under convictions. 
 Were he inspired, this last might do well enough ; but, as 
 he is only a man, and quite as often wrong as right, fearful 
 consequences have followed from his mistakes. 
 
 I take it, when called on to defend this charge against 
 Capt. Elliott, it will be done in this way. He considers • 
 the Court of 1815, a white-washing court — he even inti-- 
 mates this much, pretty plainly — and as the court does put 
 the question he mentions, he ascribes it to Capt. Elliott, 
 although the charge is purely personal, Capt. Elliott could 
 not prevent the court from asking what questions it pleas- 
 ed, the question was very pertinent as asked by the courts . 
 and this court had Henry Wheaton for a Judge Advocate,, 
 and old Alexander Murray, the father of the service, and 
 the late Captain Evans, and the late Com. George 
 Rodgers for its members. In a word, I suppose Capt. 
 Mackenzie's meaning was that the court were the tools of 
 Capt. Elliott, and as they asked the questions, in a moral 
 sense he asked the questions. If Capt. Mackenzie is not 
 allowed the benefit of this apology, miserable and insufii- 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 59 
 
 :ient — nay puerile as it is — I see no other to give him. 
 The accusation was affirmative, should rest on clear,affirm- 
 ttive evidence, and of this there is not a particle. I shall 
 inansvverablj show, as I proceed, that Capt. Mackenzie 
 lad the record before him when he made this charge. 
 
 Some may say I assume this apology, and this moral 
 conformation of Mr. Mackenzie's mind. I certainly as- 
 sume the apology, and I do it in charity ; without it, he 
 kvould be a bare-faced inventor of calumny of the grossest 
 character ; with it, his case has a little palliation. As to 
 he moral peculiarity, T can give very many instances; I 
 shall give some before I have done with Capt. Mackenzie. 
 Take a strikino; one from the late investigation of the ca- 
 tastrophe of the Somers. Mr. Spencer is said to have told 
 IVJr. Wales that he had about twenty engaged in the mutiny. 
 Upon this Capt. Mackenzie distinctly tells the Court of 
 Inquiry he had reason to infer that at least twenty men and 
 boys were engaged in the mutiny. Nine hundred and 
 ninety-nine ordinary minds in a thousand, would have said 
 " at mosV for Capt. Mackenzie's " at leasts Who ever 
 heard of a eon?:\iiviito\'''s underrating his force to a recruit 1 
 — who, but Capt. Mackenzie 1 The affair of the mutiny 
 is a series of similar blunders, as might be easily demon- 
 strated. Look at the case of the Paul Jones's sword, as 
 exposed by mjself, in Grahams' Magazine, article Dale. 
 In that instance Capt. Mackenzie did not scruple to wound 
 the feelings of an honorable family, on ex parte statements, 
 and on preconceived opinions, Avhen a letter sent to that 
 family, might have put him in possession of facts that 
 would have saved him the exposure of his gross ignorance 
 of even public professsional events. Had I room, instances, 
 without stint, could be furnished of this one-sided propen- 
 sity of Capt. Slidell Mackenzie, and this, in matters, too, 
 that he has himself thrust upon the world ! 
 
 I could furnish much more proof to establish charge 2d, 
 but some of it will appear incidentally, in making out the 
 other points. 
 
 3d. He contradicts his own witnesses. Capt. Mackenzie 
 falls into this childish error, constantly ; but I will cite two 
 or three strong and simple instances, only, to support my 
 point. 
 
^0 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 The question connected with the Lake Erie controversy 
 was one ])ure]y of distance. No one pretends tliat Capt 
 Elliott showed personal fear, a silly and totally unsup^ 
 ported tale about his dodging a shot, and which is distinctlj 
 proved to relate to another transaction, excepted ; but th^ 
 charge is that he kept the Niagara at too great a distanci 
 from the enemy. This distance is disputed ; Capt. Perry'j 
 witnesses making it greater, Capt Elliott's less ; thougf 
 neither make it as great as my three assailants. Of course 
 Capt. Mackenzie wishes to have it thought he has testi 
 mony for what he says ; and, in his appendix, he give 
 the evidence on which he relies ; saying nothing about tin 
 of the other side, however. The following is the list of tlii 
 witnesses of Capt. Mackenzie, viz : — ■ 
 
 Messrs. Turner 
 Parsons 
 Stevens 
 Forreit 
 Champlin 
 Breese 
 . Brownell 
 & 
 Taylor 
 
 The affidavits of all these gentlemen, Mr. Forrest e3 
 cepted, are furnished. From Mr. Forrest a simple lettei 
 unsworn to, is given. There was no distance so likely t( 
 be ascertained with accuracy, as that at which the action 
 commenced, if we except that when the vessels got so near 
 to each otlier as to render mistake next to impossible. At 
 the commencement of the action, there was no smoke ; all 
 was attention and expectation ; the distance was actually 
 measured by shot, no bad guides, and distance was the one 
 thing to be ascertained. Of the eight witnesses presented 
 by Capt. Mackenzie, five speak of the distance at which the 
 action commenced : viz — 
 
 Messrs. Turner 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Champlin 
 
 Breese 
 
 Brownell 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 6l 
 
 Mr. Turner says — *' The action began when the two 
 squadrons were about a mile apart." 
 
 Mr. Stevens says — " When the American squadron had 
 approached the enemy within about a mile, and the enemy 
 iiad commenced firing," ifec. 
 
 Mr. Champlin says — •' When we were within the dis* 
 tance of a mile from the enemy^ and who had commenced 
 firinsf" <fec. 
 
 Mr. Breese says — *'The action on Lake Erie commenced 
 by a firing from the enemy's flag-ship on the Lawrence, 
 at about the distance of a mile." 
 
 Mr. Brownell says — "When we were about a mile dis- 
 tant from the enemy he commenced firing." 
 
 After all this testimony fiom his own witnesses, what 
 does tiie reader think Capt. Mackenzie says on the subject 1 
 I Here are his words, page 231, vol. 1 : — " Soon after, being 
 a quarter before meridian, the enemy's flag-ship Detroit, 
 then distant about a mile and a half^ commenced the action 
 by firing a single shot at the Lawrence, which did not take 
 effect." Here, then, Capt. Mackenzie discredits every one 
 of his own witnesses, adding no less than one half to their 
 account, although it was a question of distance, and he 
 relies altogether on the opinions of these very witnesses — 
 treating the matter as if out of all question they must be 
 right, in a matter of distance also, in the heat and smoke 
 ' of a battle ! Nor is this all ; he believes these very dis* 
 credited witnesses when they speak of the distance the 
 Niagara was from the Lawrence, though they are not only 
 contradicted by Elliott's witnesses, but tliey contradict each 
 other — and they contradict Perry himself! 
 
 Again — Capt. Mackenzie says, page 228, vol. 1. "The 
 line being formed, Perry now bore up for the enemy, dis- 
 tant about six miles." Then, in a note that refers to this 
 sentence he adds, — " Mr. Cooper and Mr. Burges say nine 
 miles. This cannot be correct. (Very Mackenzie-like 
 this !) Our squadron was sailing at the rate of two, or, at 
 the most, two and a half or three knots ; and the action 
 beo-an a quarter before twelve, at the distance of a mile 
 and a half The British squadron, though hove-to, must 
 have had a head-way and drift together of half a knot." 
 [ take it this is a fair speciman of Capt. Mackenzie's 
 6 
 
62 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 mind. His calculation is that of a sea-officer, as against . 
 two " know-nothings," and he is quite satisfied with it, ^ 
 and with himself. The authority for what the history 
 says is Mr. Taylor, the sailing master of the Lawrence^^ 
 the man whose duty it was to note this distance on the ; 
 log, who, as Capt. Mackenzie shows himself, for he is one 
 of his most important witnesses^ says in his affidavit — "At 
 10, A. M.,'the enemy, despairing of gaining the wind, hove 
 to in line, with their heads to the westward, at about three 
 leagues distance.^'' &.c. 
 
 To me it seemed safer, as winds are variable, and had I 
 been particularily so that day, to trust to the sworn state- 
 ments of those who were present, when there was nothing 
 connected with the fact to warp their judgments, than to tj 
 thrust in any theory of my own. Capt. Mackenzie is so 
 fond of his own opinions, that he could not refrain from the 
 practice of asserting them, even at the expense of again 
 contradicting his oivn witness ! It is proper to add, that I 
 discover no evidence to show at what rate the American i 
 squadron was going at this time. During the action, it is i 
 known that the wind varied from something near, or quite, 
 a calm, to a four or five knot breeze. Then I humbly 
 submit, that ships, in smooth water, with their top-sails 
 aback, do not have half a knot of drift and headway, in a 
 two knot breeze. 
 
 One more instance of Capt. Mackenzie's contradicting 
 his own witnesses, out of many that offer ^ must suffice. — 
 Com. Turner is one of the best of his witnesses, on the 
 score of rank and character. I shall now show, that Capt. 
 Mackenzie has no more scruple in discrediting him, than 
 in discrediting any one else. Capt. Mackenzie in a note, 
 page 29, vol.2, says — "The most 'judicious' position 
 which the Niagara could have had, either for breaking the 
 line or takino^ her due share in the battle, was the position 
 assigned to her along side the Queen Charlotte, and at 
 close quarters; a position which, be it understood, as in- 
 volving the whole substance of the question, she never occu- 
 pied.'''' Here Capt. Mackenzie asserts that the Niagara 
 was not ill close action — meaning until Capt. Perry got on 
 board her. He repeatedly asserts the same thing else- 
 where, but this is sufficient for our present position. 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 63 
 
 In the foregoing extract Capt. Mackenzie contradicts 
 Capt. Perry in two material facts, and lie contradicts Capt. 
 Turner. He contradicts Capt. Perry who says distinctly 
 that " At ^ past 2, the wind springing up, Capt. Elliott 
 Jwas enabled to bring his vessel, the Niagara, gallantly into 
 close actiorV — and, as the Queen Charlotte and Detroit, 
 and all the English vessels were near each other, it was 
 not possible to be in close action with the one, without 
 being in close action, as to all. But Capt. Mackenzie will 
 iprobably insist on the notion that Capt. Perry meant Capt. 
 'Elliott was " ENABLED" to go into close action ; not 
 that he did it. Let him have the benefit of this subtlety, 
 for a few minutes, then. He contradicts Capt. Perry, 
 when he says that Capt. Elliott's station was at close quar- 
 ters with the Queen Charlotte, for Capt. Perry himself 
 says, page 251, appendix, vol. 2, Biog. that he issued an 
 "order directing in what manner the line was to be formed : 
 the several vessels to keep within half a cable's length of 
 each other, and enjoining it upon the commanders to pre- 
 serve their stations in the line'''' — it being a necessary con- 
 leequence, that though the Niagara was ordered to direct 
 her fire at the Queen Charlotte, it could only be done from 
 her station astern of the Caledonia, which station she oc- 
 cupied until she passed tliat vessel, on Capt. Elliott's own 
 responsibility. It is true Capt. Perry afterwards makes it 
 a charge against Capt- Elliott, that he did not attack the 
 Queen Charlotte; but the proof is of the clearest nature 
 that this could not be done, without violating the primary 
 order to preserve the line. 
 
 He contradicts Capt. Turner, who says " several weeks 
 after this, Capt. Perry told me that Capt. Elliott wished 
 him to alter that part of his official report which stated that 
 the Niagara did not, until a late period of the engagement, 
 GET into close action ; and asked me whether I thought 
 that part of his report incorrect, as it had been agreed to 
 leave the question to two commissioned officers of the fleet, 
 {Lieutenant Edwards, who was present, and myself, being 
 the officers selected). I answered, I thought that part of 
 his official report was entirely correct^ to which Lt. Ed- 
 wards assented." 
 
 This is plain English. Capt. Turner shows how he 
 
84 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 understood the "ENABLED ;" that it meant performance, 
 not mere ahility to perform^ and he also shows that he 
 thought the statement of Capt. Perry correct. Couple this 
 with Capt. Turner's complaint, already given, that Capt 
 Elliott did not bring his vessel, the Niagara, into close 
 action, "as soon as he might have done,^'' and no man cam 
 doubt Capt. Turner means that Capt. Elliott brought thc' 
 Niagara into close action^ though late. This Capt. Maek^ 
 enzie controverts, and, in so doing he contradicts anothei 
 of his own witnesses. It is time to proceed to the next 
 point. 
 
 4th. He constantly contradicts the best evidence the case 
 allows, on altogether insufficient grounds. A pretence has 
 been set up that only one or two men were hurt on board 
 the Niagara, until Capt. Perry carried her into close action. 
 The fact has been taken as proof she was not in action^ 
 Most of Capt. Mackenzie's witnesses say that " It was a I 
 received opinion in the fleet, that, previous to Commodore 
 Perry's going on board the Niagara, she had but one man 
 wounded, &.c." See Mr. Stevens*s affidavit, page 267 
 vol. 2. 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie does not understand that a " received 
 opinion" when wrong, tells against those who entertain 
 it. The only evidence he gives for supporting this "received 
 opinion," is where he says — " The Niagara had two killed 
 and twenty-three wounded ; all but two of the wounded 
 having been struck after Capt. Perry took command of 
 her, as stated by the Surgeon who attended them.'* 
 
 In the first place Capt. Mackenzie and the " received:!' 
 opinion" quoted, do not agree ; one party saying one, and 
 the other that two men wei-e hurt before Capt. Perry reach- 
 ed the Niagara. If out of the action, as INIessrs. Duer and 
 Burges contend, even these are two too many. But the 
 " Surgeon who attended them," says nothing of the sort. 
 Dr. Parsons is meant, and here are his words : — " The 
 second day after the action I attended the wounded of the 
 Niagara (the Surgeon of that vessel having been sick,) and 
 out of twenty cases, not more than one or two said they 
 were wounded while Capt. Elliott was on board the ship.'*^ 
 Now, Capt. Mackenzie, himself, admits that two men 
 were killed, and it is to be presumed they did not tell Dr. 
 
 fa 
 
 M 
 
 (J 
 
 V 
 
 \ 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 65 
 
 Parsons, '* the second day after the action," when they 
 *' were struck." Tlien Dr. Parsons speaks of only twenty 
 cases, and Capt. Mackenzie admits tliere were twenty-three 
 wounded. By addini^ these three to the two dead men we 
 take five, at once, out of Dr. Parsons's own cateirory. Nor 
 does Dr. Parsons say how many he questioned, which may 
 have been after all merely the one or two who made the 
 answers. Whi/ did Dr. Parsons thus question these men? 
 Clearly in the temper of a partisan, and the testimony 
 would have been far more satisfactory had it come from a 
 quarter that was free from the suspicion of wishing" to put 
 leadinj^ questions. Nor is Dr. Parsons's affidavit uncontra- 
 dicted by even Perry himself. It says — "That the wound- 
 ed, from the first of their coming down, complained that 
 njj the Niagara (commanded by Capt. Elliott,) did not come 
 fl,j! up to her station and close with the Charlotte^ although he 
 all had been ordered by signal ; and this complaint was fre- 
 rell quently repeated by them till the Lawrence struck, and 
 repeatedly by Lieutenants Brooks, Yarnall and Claxton." 
 Perry, in his official letter says — " Lieutenant Yarnall, 
 first of the Lawrence, though several times wounded, re- 
 fused TO QUIT THE DKCK." Hcrc he flatly contradicts Dr. 
 Parson's affidavit. But, admitting Dr. Parsons's statement 
 to be all that Capt. Mackenzie assumes it to be, it is con- 
 tradicted, in its eftect — I pretend not lo say how often Jack 
 may have hoaxed him, to flatter his obvious desire to make 
 out a case against Com. Elliott— by witnesses enough to 
 overwhelm him, and they the best witnesses of which the 
 case admits. 
 
 Dr. Barton, the Surgeon of the Niagara, to whom the 
 wounded presented themselves in the battle, itself, says — 
 *' The number of wounded on board the Niagara has been 
 falsely estimated at twenty, and it has been stated that only 
 one or two were wounded previous to Capt. Perry's coming 
 on board. The exact number, including those dangerously 
 or severely wounded was twenty. seven, (this takes four 
 more out of Dr. Parsons's category) and the slight cases 
 not reported, must have amounted to six or eight more.'* 
 (Six or eight more out of the category.) Five were killed 
 during the action, and a few died soon after ; one man was 
 mortally wounded on the berth-deck very early in the con- 
 6* 
 
66 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 test by a shot wliicb passed through both sides of the ves- 
 seJ." — "The precise period of ("apt. Perry's coming on 
 board I do not know, but I firmly believe that more than 
 half the above number were wounded before he boarded 
 us. This I well recollect, that when Lt. Webster was 
 brouofht below, the ward-room and steerajje were crowded 
 with wounded, and I have heard him saj that at the time 
 he was knocked down, the Commodore had not come on 
 board." ^ ^ 
 
 AVe will nov/ turn to Lt. Webster's testimony before tho 
 Court of Inquiry, in 1815. Capt. Elliott asked this offi- 
 cer—" Was not my helm up, and the Niagara standing 
 directly for the enemy's fleet, when Capt. Perry came on 
 board." To which the answer was — "/ tvas below and 
 can not say." This being below refers to the time he was- 
 knocked down, and completely covers Dr. Barton's case.- 
 Mr. Webster makes a similar answer to another question 
 which referred to the time when Capt. Perry came on boards 
 . Nor is this all. This gentleman says, in answer to a ques- 
 tion about the injuries received by the Niagara, with other 
 things, " There were two men killed from my division, 
 before I went bcLoWy and a number of men wounded on 
 board." 
 
 Now all this is natural and clear. Mr. Webster's an- 
 swers had no reference to the report about the 'one man 
 wounded,' for in 1815, this point had not got into the con- 
 troversy. It first appears in 1818. 
 
 Capt. Montgomery, formerly of the Niagara, says — " I 
 was much surprised, sir, to observe in an anonymous 
 pamphlet recently published, a statement that not more 
 than three or four were killed or wounded at the time of 
 Com. Perry's coming en board the Niagara, as I am most 
 firmly impressed with the belief that there could not have 
 been more than that number injured subsequent to your 
 leaving the Niagara ,^^ dye. 
 
 Peter Perry, Boatswain of the Niagara, swears — *' I am 
 firmly of belief that not more than four or five men were 
 injured by the enemy's shot on board the Niagara after 
 Com. Perry came on board. ''^ 
 
 Mr. Tatem, Master's-niate of the Niagara, has assured 
 me personally, that he thinks quite half, if not more of the 
 
liATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 07 
 
 wounded men received their injuries before Capt. Perry 
 readied them. 
 
 If testimony can dispose of a question, this may be deem- 
 ed disposed of. I have given all the evid.ince on the one 
 side, viz: " rumors" anion <^ Capt. Perry's friends, and Dr, 
 Parsons's statements ; and tlie best evidence of which the 
 case will admit, on the other ! 
 
 Take another instance of the manner in which 
 Captain Mackenzie offends, under charge Fourth. — 
 He says, page 245, vol. I. — " At half past two, 
 when Perry left the Lawrence, tlie Niagara was pas- 
 . sing her weather or larboard beam, at the distance of 
 nearly half a mile. The breeze had freshened ; her main- 
 top-sail was filled, and she was passing the British squad- 
 ron rapidly." Such is Capt. Mackenzie's theory of the 
 conduct of Capt. Elliott. His book has many assertions 
 to the same effect, presented in different terms, all going to 
 show that the Niagara was passing nearly half a mile to 
 windward of the Lawrence, which vessel, according to his 
 own showing, was three hundred and fifty yards to wind- 
 ward of the enemy. At page 235, vol. l,lie says — " Capt. 
 Elliott did not, however, follow in the Niagara, (that is, fol- 
 low the Caledonia to leeward, when she bore up to let Capt. 
 Elliott pass,) but sheered to windvvard, and by brailiiig up 
 bis jib and backing his main-top-sail, balanced the efforts 
 of his sails so as to keep his vessel stationary, and prevent 
 her approaching the enemy." 
 
 This is the substance of Capt. Elliott's dehnquency, 
 agreeably to Capt. Mackenzie. In order to understand 
 the point the better, I will state what I conceive to be the 
 facts. 
 
 The wind was light at south east. The English were 
 lying-to, in a close line ahead, looking to the southward 
 and westward. Perry formed his line astern and to wind- 
 ward, and bore down with the wind abeam. Two schoo- 
 ners, the Scorpion and Ariel, led the Americans, passing a 
 little to windward of the route of the main hne. Then 
 came the Lawrence, Caledonia, and Niagara, with inter- 
 vals of half a cable's length between them. Tiie rest of 
 the line is of no importance here. 
 
 The enemy had many long guns, and, as the Americans 
 came within their reach, they opened, principally on the 
 
68 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 Lawrence, the nearest of the large vessels. Finding he 
 >vas approaching too slowly, and suffering heavily. Perry 
 made sail in tlie Lawrence, to get the sooner within reach 
 of his carronades. The witnesses who testify against 
 Capt. Elliott, evidently think the latter ought to have imi- 
 tated this manoeuvre, as the wind would have carried the 
 Niagara down as well and as fast as it did the Lawrence. 
 They also appear to think that as Capt. Elliott was direct- 
 ed to engage the Charlotte, which ship shifted her berth a 
 short distance further to the westward, within the first half 
 liour, that it v as his duty to follow her at all hazards. — 
 They overlook the all important fact that Capt. Perry had 
 formally laid down a line of battle, that he had *' enjoined 
 it upon the commanders to preserve their stations in 
 THE link" ; that the orders to engage different vessels 
 meant to fire at those vessels /rom the line, and that the first 
 object was to preserve the line, as given, which alone could 
 give concentration and order to the attack. If Perry led 
 ahead of his own order of battle, he M'as irresponsible, but 
 others would not have been. 
 
 The Lawrence, sailing better, left the Caledonia astern, 
 the latter beinof a merchant brisf armed for the cruise.— 
 This necessarily kept the Niagara astern also, which brig, 
 following directly in the wake of the Caledonia, was oblig- 
 ed to brace her main-top-sail sharp aback, in order to pre- 
 vent going into her. These w^ere the only occasions, 
 while Capt. Elliott was in her, that the Niagara had her 
 top-sail aback and jib brailed. Capt. Perry was present, 
 knew best how much he wanted assistance, and was 
 bound, on every principle of military service, to take the re- 
 sponsibility of changing his own line of battle. If he was 
 not there for such a purpose, when necessary, he was not 
 there for the purposes of a commander-in-chief, It was 
 clearly his duty to have ordered the Niagara to pass the 
 Caledonia, if circumstances required it ; and it was the du- 
 ty of Capt Elliott to remain where he had been placed, 
 imtil circumstances induced him to think his commander 
 could not control events. Any other course would have 
 led to the grossest insubordination, and Capt. Elliott might 
 have been ruined in the event of an accident. There is no 
 principle more unjust, than to hold an officer to the respoa- 
 
■ BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 69 
 
 sibility of obedience and disobedience, in the same breath. 
 
 After a time, Capt. Elliott determined to pass the Cale- 
 donia, on his own responsibility. He says he thought 
 Perry must have been killed. He did pass, steering direct- 
 ly in the Lawrence's wake, and making sail ; not throwing 
 his top-sail aback, and luffing away to windward, as insis- 
 ted on, by Capt. Mackenzie. But there was little or no 
 wind, and time passed before the Niagara could close. At 
 length the breeze freshened, when the Lawrence, a wreck, 
 dropped astern and to leeward. The Niagara passed her 
 to windward. The Caledonia, which vessel having pivot 
 guns, and her enemy nearer to leeward, had kept more off, 
 followed to leeward of the Lawrence. The English now 
 began to draw ahead, also, and the Niagara made more 
 sail, and steered for the head of the English line, where 
 alone were to be found their two largest vessels. Perry 
 now followed the Niagara in a boat, and reached her just 
 as she was coming up abeam of the Detroit and Charlotte, 
 distant from a thousand to fifteen hundred feet, or about as 
 near as the Lawrence had ever got. 
 
 Nothing is easier than to show the general truth of this 
 statement, by the best testimony the case will allow. Capt. 
 Perry says Capt. Elliott came into close action at half past 
 two, unless the " ENABLED" is to be taken as a miser- 
 able and disreputable subterfuge. Capt. Turner confirms 
 it, unequivocally, in two distinct passages of his affidavit. 
 Mr. Packett is a witness much vaunted by the other side, 
 though it has never seen Jit to publish his statement, on the 
 plea that he is dead ! Messrs. Yarnall, Forrest and Stevens 
 are dead, and the statements of the two first have been of- 
 ten printed since their deaths, and those of the latter no 
 doubt would be, if there was occassion. Whatever may 
 have been the true motive for suppressing Mr. Packett's ev- 
 idence, it flatly contradicts the theory of Mr. Mackenzie as 
 to the course Capt. Elliott was steering, when Capt. Perry 
 followed him in a boat. Mr. Packett says — " These doubts 
 (as to the result of the day,) were increased when the boat 
 with Capt. Perry left for the Niagara, who had at that time 
 made sail, and was standing for the head of the line, (evi- 
 dently THE SCENE OP ACTION,) and to wiudward of the 
 
70 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 Lawrence." The words in the parenthesis are Mr. Pack- 
 ett's, put in small capitals by me. 
 
 Who was Mr. Packett'? A Virginian, equally indepen- 
 dant of the two captains, who commanded the Ariel, one 
 of the vessels stationed on the Lawrence's weather bow. — 
 His position enabled him to seethe course Capt. Elliott was 
 steering, at that moment, and it is not within the bounds of 
 moral probability that he would have used the language he 
 did, had the Niagara been passing to windward of his own 
 vessel. Unless Capt. Elliott went to windward of the 
 Ariel and Scorpion, he could not have passed half a mile 
 or a quarter of a mile to windward of the Lawrence. These 
 two schooners were admitted to be in close action, the 
 whole time. No one pretends directly that the Niagara 
 ivent to windward of these tivo schoo7iers, a circumstance 
 that is conclusive as to her position. This fact would not 
 have been overlooked, in so bitter a controversy, had it 
 been so. 
 
 On the other hand the officers of the Niagara, the best 
 witnesses as to the position of their own vessel, testify, in 
 various forms, against Capt. Mackenzie's theory. Lt. 
 Webster say, " We had got into pretty close action, before 
 I went below." This was some time before Capt. Perry 
 got on board. Again, in answer to a question from Capt. 
 Elliott, whether " The Niagara was, at any time during 
 the action, from half to three-quarters of a mile on the 
 weather bow of the Lawrence, after 1 ordered the Caledo- 
 nia out of the linel" — he says — " She was not. I wish 
 also to correct my evidence of yesterday, by adding that 
 the Ariel and vScorpion were on the weather how of the 
 JLawrence,'''' Again, in answer to the question from Capt. 
 Elliott, " What distance was I from the Lawrence when T 
 passed her, gaining the head of the line ?" he says — " It 
 did not, in my opinion, exceed thirty yards." On this 
 point, Mr. Montgomery says — "When Capt. Elliott left 
 the Niagara, they (the gun boats,) were all astern of us. — 
 We had passed the Scorpion and Ariel. When Captain 
 Perry came on board they were all astern, except that I do 
 not rccolhjct whether the Scorpion and Ariel were to wind^ 
 ward, or astern." 
 ^ Tliis is plain enough. The Scorpion and Ariel hadheen 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 71 
 
 ahead, and were passed, in pushing- for tlie head of the 
 English line, which was moving to the westward. Mr. 
 Montgomery does not remember whether, at that precise 
 moment, they had been passed, or were to winchvard ; — 
 proof that the Niagara went between them and ilie Law- 
 rence. If she did this^ Capt. Mackenzie's theory falls ; or, 
 these two schooners, which he affirms were in close action, 
 were not in close action. 
 
 Mr. Tatem says — " He, (Capt. Elliott, in passing the 
 Lawrence,) took very little more than room enough to pass 
 to windward." 
 
 Mr. Cummings says on the same subject — "I was not 
 looking at her, (the Lawrence,) but when I first saw her, 
 after we passed her, she was not more than a quarter of a 
 mile off." 
 
 This means astern^ as in the previous answer he had 
 said, in reference to the position of the Niagara about that 
 time, — " I think we were nearer the enemy than the Law- 
 rence.'''^ 
 
 Mr. Tatem, who was then acting as Master of the Nia- 
 gara, says, distinctly, when asked, " Was not the helm up, 
 and the Niagara bearing down on the enemy when Capt. 
 Perry came on board ?" " Yes." 
 
 Mr. Berry, the Boatswain, says — "When very near the 
 British line, it was discovered Capt. Perry had left his 
 vessel," ^c. 
 
 Capt. Brevoort says — " Coming near the Lawrence, a 
 boat was discovered," (fee. 
 
 But, Mr. Magrath was probably the best witness of which 
 the case admitted. He was a seaman, stood by Captain 
 Elliott's side, and gives his testimony like a man of sense, 
 with distinctness and moderation. He says — " From a 
 few minutes after the commencement of the action^ the ene- 
 my being formed very close in a line ahead, their shot 
 came over us in every direction, and repeatedly hulled us^ 
 It was one of these shot that passed through both sides, as 
 mentioned by Dr. Barton. Again — " Our position was 
 preserved as T believe the line was intended to be formed 
 during the action ; the Caledonia being so close ahead of 
 |t us, that we were obHged frequently to keep the main yard 
 H|braced sharp aback, to keep from going foul of her." — 
 
72 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 Every seaman knows that a ship must be off the wind, 
 when a top-sail is braced sharp aback ; when on a wind, it 
 is braced flat aback. Again — " Capt. Elliott hailed the 
 Caledonia, and ordered her helm put up, which was done, 
 and the Niagara passed ahead hy filling the main-topsail 
 and setting the jib and fore and aft mainsails. The Ni- 
 agara </<ew closed in the wake of the Lawrence^'''* [Captain 
 Mackenzie says she hove-to, sharp up] — " and continued 
 the action with the usual vigor, until the Lawrence dropped 
 astern, when it is well known that the Niagara almost 
 instantly came abreast of the Detroit and Queen Char- 
 lotte^ which could not have been the case had she been a 
 long distance asterjiJ'^ \ 
 
 I look upon Mr. Magrath's as the true version of tlie bat- 
 tle. The Niagara was in her station^ astern of the Cale- 
 donia, Capt. Perry omitting to call her out of it. At length, 
 Capt. Elliott assumed the responsibility of breaking the 
 line, and closed as mentioned. 
 
 In opposition to this, Capt. Mackenzie finds some con- 
 fused and contradictory testimony of the other side. The 
 ofHcers of the Lawrence seem to think the order to engage 
 the Charlotte in the line, was an order to follow her, let 
 her go where she might. The man who reasons thus, is 
 no tactician or disciplinarian. The object was to get com- 
 mand of the lake, and had half the British squadron wore 
 round, and made off, it would have been Perry's duty to 
 stay and capture the remainder — unless, indeed, he felt 
 certain he was strong enough to seize all. Nothing is 
 plainer than the fact, that the witnesses against Captain 
 Elhott fancy the duty of that officer was to follow the 
 Charlotte, though he broke the line. They have not un- 
 derstood the subject, having been young and inexperienced. 
 
 5th. He is grossly and absiu'dly illogical. The friends 
 of Capt- Mackenzie — some of them at least, — admit that 
 he cannot reason. They think him honest, but allow he 
 is no logician. I say he is often absurd as a logician. Let 
 us look for a few proofs. 
 
 In the first place he adopts Mr. Burges's theory of the 
 "ENABLED." This is enough, of itself, to make any 
 man a Master of Arts, in absurdity. At first, I felt a re- 
 luctance to believe that an officer in the Navy could suppose 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 73 
 
 Perry meditated any thing so unworthy ; but, on a re-ex 
 • amination of Capt. Mackenzie's book, I lind it must be con- 
 ceded that there is, at least, ojie. Here is what he says, 
 after quoting Perry's words — " lie, (Perry,) leaves to Capt. 
 Elliott the benefit of the infkrenoe that, more than two 
 hours after the Lawrence had been in close action, he ac- 
 tually did what he was enabled to do ; which, by the con- 
 current testimony of the officers of the squadron, except a 
 few of those of the Niagara, he never did." Now this 
 means one of two things — viz : either that Perry told a 
 downright untruth, or that he meant the subtlety of the 
 «' ENABLED." I think, an examination will show it 
 means the last. I shall not suppose any reader so weak 
 as to make it necessary to go over this silly and unprinci- 
 pled point again. 
 
 But, it may be well to say, Capt. Mackenzie is wo^ justi- 
 fied in his assertion about the " concurrent testimony of 
 the officers of the squadron, a few of the Niagara except- 
 eciy This is one of the many instances in which Captain 
 Mackenzie assumes his facts. There is very little evidence, 
 and that by no means clear and direct, to show that Capt. 
 Elliott did not take the Niagara into close action ; while 
 there is a great deal to shoio he did. Of the eight witnes- 
 ses, whose testimony is given by Capt. Mackenzie himself, 
 Messrs. Champlin, Breese, and Brownell, say nothing to 
 this point — or, if any thing is intended to be said, it leaves 
 the inference that, late in the battle, the Niagara r/?V/ close. 
 Capt. Perry says he did get into close action, — barring the 
 ** ENABLED" ; Mr. Turner clearly says it, as I have 
 shown; Mr. Packett says it also; Mr. Conklin, of the 
 Tigress., says — " When the signal was made for close ac- 
 tion, that vessel, (the Niagara, in or near the position 
 where Perry found her, and before he bore up to cut the 
 line,) was near the enemy's ships Detroit and Queen Char- 
 lotte." Mr. Nichols, of the Somers, leaves the same infer- 
 ence. Here, then, are three of the Lawrence's officers 
 who are silent on the point ; one. Perry himself who 
 'contradicts it, and four others who did not belong to the 
 Niagara, virtually doing the same. '* A few officers of the 
 Niagara excepted !" — Messrs. Smith, Magrath, Edwards, 
 Webster, and Brevoort, in a letter to the Secretary of the 
 7 
 
74 BATTLE OF LAKE ER\E. 
 
 Navy, say — '' Capt. Elliott ordered the Caledonia to bear 
 up and leave us room to close icith the Lawrence^ whicJu 
 was done, and the action carried on \?ith great vigor and 
 spirit on both sides.'* "We now ranged ahead, receiving'^ 
 the combined fires of the Detroit, Queen Charlotte and 
 Lady Prevost," &c. Some of these gentlemen speak else- 
 where to the same point, as IVIr. Magrath in the instance 
 already given. Messrs. Montgomery, Adams, Tatem, 
 Cummings, and Berry, clearly testify to the same fact, — 
 This makes ten officers of the Niagara who contradict Capt. 
 Mackenzie, including every man of that vessel. Dr. Barton 
 excepted, who testified at all. Dr. Barton is excepted, 
 merely because he was below. But this is leading me 
 from the absurdity. The case may be set down anions' 
 those in which Capt. Mackenzie disregards the witnesses, 
 to make facts of his own. 
 
 Speaking of the loss of the different vessels, Captain 
 Mackenzie reasons thus, his object being to show that 
 Capt. Elliott could not have seen much fighting on the lOtli 
 »September ; — the ' pig-tail' of his book, " Two of the 
 schooners, the Tigress and Porcupine, had no casualties 
 whatever ; and, as the Trippe and Somers had each hut 
 two uwunded, it shows that" " They were unable to take 
 an important part in the battle until just before the enemy 
 struck." Here, the fact that only two were wounded, is 
 given as an argument why the vessel could not have been 
 long engaged ; and yet, Capt. Mackenzie, himself, puts 
 the Caledonia into close fight from the first, and says, him- 
 self, she had but three wounded. This shows the virtue 
 there is in a single man ! The Ariel had but four hurt, 
 though a gun burst ; and the Scorpion but two, who were 
 both killed. Yet the Scorpion, with her two hirs, was in 
 action the first vessel. She actually began the fight ! Into 
 this nonsense, Mr. Mackenzie falls in nearly every chapter. 
 
 Again, Mr. Mackenzie says, page 237, vol. 1 — " The 
 Surgeon remarks that he could discern no perceptible dif- 
 ference in the rajndity of the Jiring of the guns over his 
 head DURING THE ACTION ; THROUGHOUT, the actual firing 
 seemed as rapid as in exercise befi)rc battle." Tt is to be 
 presumed tliat Capt. Mackenzie did not allude to this 
 statement of the Surgeon's — Dr. Parsons, the Surgcoji''s- 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 75 
 
 mate, is probably meant, but no matter who it was — with- 
 out wishing liis readers to beheve it true. By way of prov- 
 ing, or etc n eking this surprising fact, three sentences lower 
 down, Capt. Mackenzie goes on to say — *' One by one the 
 guns were dismounted, until only one remained that could 
 be fired." " Of one hundred well men who had gone into 
 action, twenty-two were killed and sixty-one wounded." — 
 Now, sixty-one added to twenty-two, make eighty-three ; 
 which number substracted from one hundred, leaves sev- 
 enteen. Corollary — one gun, and seventeen men, «/"- 
 ter fighting two hours and a. half, as rapidly as if at exer- 
 cise, kept up as brisk a fire, as ten guns and one hun- 
 dred Men ! This statement, be it remembered, came from 
 a sea-officer ! 
 
 Let us try him again. Capt, Mackenzie, it will be re- 
 membered, contends that the Niagara was not in close ac- 
 tion, until Capt. Perry got on board. It is proved that Lt. 
 Webster was knocked down before Capt. Perry reached 
 the brig. In a note, page 43, vol. 2, Capt. Mackenzie says 
 — " Acting Sailing-master Webster, of the Niagara, testi- 
 fied, before a Court of Inquiry on Capt. ElUott in 1815, 
 two men were killed from his division, and a number of 
 men wounded on board before he went below. This took 
 place before Capt. Perry boarded the Niagara, at which 
 time Mr. Webster was below, though he signed the letter 
 stating what Capt. Perry said at that time to Capt. Elliott. 
 Mr. Webster was unquestionably jiistaken. Though 
 be was himself carried below stunned bv a hammock, 
 WAD, or falling rigging, though thoroughly stunned for the 
 time, he recovered and returned to his duty; he was not 
 even sufficiently injured to be borne on the list of the slight- 
 ly wounded. There were but two killed in all on board the 
 Niagara during the action; and the Surgeon who made 
 out the list oi killed and ivounded,, and attended to curing 
 the latter, ascertained personally from them, that only two 
 had been wounded before Capt. Perry took charge of the 
 brig. As there were twenty-three out of five and twenty 
 who were wounded after he came on board, while engag- 
 ing the whole British squadron within pistol shot, the con- 
 clusion seems irrisistable, that the only two killed through- 
 out the action must have been killed after she came to 
 
7& BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 close quarters. The two known to be wounded at that 
 time mai/ have been supposed hi/ 3Ir. Webster dead^ and. 
 been ihc two concerning wliich he testified." 
 
 This is a precious paragraph ! It is an epitome of the 
 Mackenzie, as a historian, a logician, and a poet! In the<- 
 first place he reasons on Mr. Webster's hurt, as if it might 
 have come from a ivad\ (any thing but a shot,) while he^ 
 insists that Capt. Elliott was not in close action \ Then het 
 throws out an insinuation that Mr. Webster signed a pa- 
 per of which he could not know the contents to be true, as^ 
 the event occurred on deck, and Mr. Webster was below, 
 at the time. This is one of the ' points' on that side of the 
 question. But, any thing may be made a pohit, if testimony* 
 is tortured to sustain it. The testimony in question was 
 given in a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, and distinct- 
 ly states that the officers who sign it, give their *' coinhined 
 observations, on the occurrences to which it relates."^ — 
 *' United" would have been a less pretending word, per- 
 haps, but the meaning is clear enough. It simply says we 
 put all our observations together for your information, one 
 having seen or heard this, another that, and all some 
 things. This is the simple, true and just answer to all 
 these cavillings ; cavillings which even find their way into 
 Capt. Perry's charges. So obvious was the truth, in this 
 matter, that the intelligent council employed against me in 
 the Stone arbitration, disdained to resort to so shallow an 
 argument. Next comes the proposition in arithmetic, that, 
 as two only were wounded, while Capt. Elliott was om 
 board, and twenty -three while Capt. Perry was on board,, 
 why the two slain must, by arithmatica) inference, have 
 been killed among the greater number wounded. As two] 
 wounded are to twenty-three, so are two dead men to Capt. 
 Perry ! Well, let this be so, and carry out the principle. 
 The Porcupine, according to Capt. Mackenzie, himself, , 
 had two men killed, while no one is reported as wounded. 
 Ah ! but " this must be a mistake.'* Two dead men log- 
 ically infer twenty-two wounded men ; reasoning back- 
 ward, therefore, and a la Mackenzie, the Scorpion's report 
 must have its stino- wantinoj. Then the two men Mr. Web- 
 sler douhth;ss thought dead, since he sivears they were 
 dcad,/»oy have come to life again, and he know nothing 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 77 
 
 about it ! They may not, also. As tliis was Mr. Webster's 
 first battle, the men belonged to his own division, and the 
 names of just two men killed in a ship would be very like- 
 ly to be known, to plain men it seems rather more proba- 
 ble Mr. Webster would know whether his two dead men 
 had been resuscitated, or not. Capt. Mackenzie is a reg- 
 ular resurrectionist ! 
 
 Did ever human being concoct before such a paragraph, 
 to meet the plain raatter-of-fact oath of a respectable man, 
 who ought, and probably did know what he was about ! 
 Did Capt, Mackenzie ever reason in this manner on a 
 grave occasion ? — If he did, no one need be surprised at 
 what has happened, 
 
 6th. ' He has manifested an indifference to justice, 
 which is discreditable to any writer, and which approaches 
 an indifference to the truth.' One strong instance, must 
 suffice for this head, though many might be given. 
 
 Jt has been said that Capt. Mackenzie gives the testimo- 
 ny of only one side. This, in a man who proposes to write 
 history, is bad enough of itself, but Capt. Mackenzie has 
 himself shown that his case is much worse. Among the 
 witnesses whom he cites, is a Lt. Forrest of the Lawrence. 
 Atpaiic 244, vol. 1, he especially comments on the testimo- 
 ny of Mr. Forrest. A conversation is given which is said to 
 have taken place between Capt, Perry and Mr. Forrest, the 
 drift of which was to show what was thought of Captain 
 Elliott's conduct during the battle. This conversation as- 
 sumes that Elliott was not in close action when Perry got 
 into the boat. It contradicts Capt. Perry's official report, 
 it contradicts Messrs. Turner, of the Caledonia, Packett,. 
 of the Ariel, Conklin, of the Tigress, and all the officers 
 of the Niagara who have testified, Dr. Barton excepted, 
 who, being below, could not know the positions of the brigs. 
 Still Capt. Mackenzie quotes this conversation, as if it were 
 gospel. It probably never occurred. 
 
 In a word, ftJr. Forrest, in this letter, is one of the most 
 decided of all the witnesses against Capt. Elliott. He says- 
 — " I was on deck from day-light till after the battle was 
 over ; and I believed at the time, and do still most solemn- 
 ly believe, that Capt. Jesse D. Elliott was influenced either 
 
 hi/ cowardice, and fear prevented him from closing with 
 
 7* 
 
/& BATTLE OF LAKE EKIE. 
 
 the enemy, or that he wished to sacrifice the Lawrence^ and 
 then claim the victory for himself. ^^ 
 
 Before I proceed farther, I will say here, that I 
 do not believe I>ir. Forrest ever wrote that sentence; though 
 I presume he put his name to it. It has a grammatical 
 precision that not one sailor in a thousand ^ ould have ob- • 
 served — scarcely one landsman. It is correct in a point of ^ 
 grammatical construction, on which even many good writers 
 fail. Most men would have said '* That either Capt. Jesse 
 D. Elliott was influenced" — instead of " was influenced 
 either by," Slc. Mr. Forrest was not the man, in my 
 judgment,, to know or understand the distinction. Still,! 
 admit, it is all conjecture, and, if true, merely shows he had 
 a flapper to help him along. 
 
 But this is a trifle, whether true or not, as compared to 
 what is to follow." Mr. Forrest says, in another part of his 
 letter — "After the commencement of the action. Captain 
 Elliott, in the Niagara, instead of keeping on with us, and 
 engaging his opponent as directed, put his helm down a7id 
 sheered to windward of the Laicrence, leaving the Lawrence 
 exposed to the fire of the enemy's two largest vessels." — • 
 This testimony of Mr. Forrest's is given in a letter, <A«< is 
 not sworn to, and which is dated January 29th, 1821. The 
 battle having, been fought September 10th, 1813, it follows 
 that this letter was written seven years, four months and 
 jiineteeen days after the events to which it alludes. Now 
 this same Mr. Forrest was a witness before the Court of In- 
 quiry, so often mentioned. There he was under oath. His 
 examination took place April 26th, 1815, or one year, 
 seven months and sixteen days after the events,. As be- 
 tween these two bits of evidence, then, no one can hesitate 
 about saying which is entitled to be preferred ; one was 
 under oath, the other not — one is broadly contradicted by 
 a great mass of testimony coming from the best witnesses 
 the case affords, the other is much less so, though impugn- 
 ed ; one is given more than seven years after the event, 
 the other less than two. 
 
 Before the Court of Inquiry, the two following questions 
 were put to Mr. Forrest, who returned the answers here 
 given. 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 79 
 
 Question. — " Did he, (Capt. Elliott,) do every tiling be- 
 coming a brave and meritorious olFicer in that action '?" 
 
 Ansvver. — " So far as I saw^ I believe he did.'''' 
 
 Q.uestion. — " Did the Caledonia and Lawrence, at anif 
 time during the action^ bear up and run down on the ene- 
 my, leaving the Niagara standing on V 
 
 Answer. — *' After the action commenced the Niagara 
 loas standing directly after us." 
 
 Now, here are two instances in which Mr. Forrest flatly 
 contradicts himself. In the letter he says Capt. Elliott 
 was a traitor or a coward, in the sworn testimony he be- 
 lieves he behaved like a "brave and meritorious officer." — 
 In the letter he says that Capt. Elliott, instead of keeping 
 on with the Lawrence, put his helm down and "sheered tc 
 windward ;" in the sworn testimony he says just the con- 
 trary ! 
 
 Mr. Forrest, 1 understand, was a man of very feeble 
 capacity, as was Mr. Yarnall, the other Lieutenant of the 
 Niagara, and it may be some excuse for him, that he did 
 not thoroughly comprehend what he was about. But this 
 does not excuse Capt. Mackenzie. This gentleman par- 
 ades before the world the letter of Mr. Forrest, while he 
 suppresses the testimony before tht Court of Inquiry. — 
 This is far worse, than merely pubhshing the testimony of 
 one side — it is presenting that point of the testimony of a 
 particular witness, which serves his, Capt. Mackenzie's 
 purpose, and suppressing that which flatly contradicts '\%y. 
 dwelling on the imperfect evidence, and concealing the 
 perfect ; and all coming from the same witness ! 
 
 But, Capt. Mackenzie, those v/ho have been singing his 
 praises for the last six months, will probably say, may not 
 have known of the testimony of Mr. Forrest before the 
 Court of Inquiry. This is possible, though far from 
 probable. If ignorant, this would remove the taint which 
 would otherwise rest on him ! Certainly. Let us look 
 into the facts. 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie is not a reserved writer. His book is 
 full of truths, or atrocious calumnies on Capt. Elliott, nor 
 is it very guarded as to its censures on me. That Capt. 
 Elliott is, in some instances calumniated, I have proved ; 
 I tliink he is in others, about which I have said nothing : 
 
80 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 it is highly probable he is, in most of Capt. Mackenzie's 
 accusations, if not in all. When a man writes accusations i 
 he is bound to use a proper degree of caution. Now, the: 
 record of the Court of Inquiry has been often printed — it is 
 to be found at the Navy Department, also, whence I ob- 
 tained a certified copy. A biography of Capt. Elliott has 
 been published, which Capt. Mackenzie must have read, 
 as he speaks of it often. He calls it an auto-biography, as 
 if Capt. Elliott had prepared it himself. Well, in the ap- 
 pendix to this biography of Elliott is to be found nearly 
 all the testimony in the different controversies; that against^ 
 as well as that for Com. Elliott. In this particular, at 
 lea.st, the book is honest. The evidence is not only given, 
 but, so far as I can discover, fau'ly given. In Ms appendix, 
 Capt. Mackenzie gives the testimony of only his own side, 
 filling the space, that might better have been filled with the 
 evidence of Com. Elliott, with a copy of the charges under 
 which Com. Elliott was tried in 1840 ; twenty-two years 
 after Perry'' s death^ and on matters nowise connected with 
 Perry. 
 
 Among other things alleged against me, Capt. Macken- 
 zie, page 42, vol. 2, in speaking of the Biography of Com. 
 Elliott, says — " Such is a specimen of a work, put forth, 
 like some lewd jest book, or collection of indecent songs, 
 Avithout the name of author, publisher, or even printer: a 
 Avork which has nevertheless been freely used by Mr. 
 Cooper in constructing the Naval History of the United 
 States. " Shortly after the appearance of the life of Perry, 
 I addressed a letter to the Evening Post, pointing out some 
 of the weak spots in the work, en attendant, and in refer- 
 ence to this particular passage I tell Capt. Mackenzie 
 that he is mistaken ; that I took nothinij from the text of 
 that work. It was true, I used the work on account of the 
 apj)endix, which contained all the testimony as mentioned, 
 and 1 found it convenient as a book of reference I re- 
 gretted to add, tliat, had Capt Mackenzie's book earlier 
 appeared, I should have referred to its pages, in vain, with 
 the same object, inasmuch as it contai?is the evidence of 
 only one side. I then di.stinctly showed the effect of this 
 one-sided evidence, by citing as an instance the case of Mr. 
 F orrest. Still I did not accuse Capt. 3Iackenzie of having 
 
I 
 
 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 81 
 
 deliberately suppressed Mr. Forrest's testimony before the 
 Court of Inquiry. On this head, I said : " Mr. Mackenzie 
 has not laid before the woild the latter testimony (the evi- 
 dence before the Court of Inquiry.) Whether he ever saw 
 it or not, I shall not pretend to say ; and this merely be- 
 cause 1 do not hioia. Had he observed the same reserve 
 as respects me, his work, I cannot but think, would have 
 been written in better taste, and I am certain it would have 
 been far more accurate." 
 
 This letter extracted an answer from Capt. Mackenzie, 
 which appeared in the Evening Post of April 7th, 1841, 
 my letter having appeared March 26th, of the same year. 
 In answer to what 1 said about the Forrest testimony, Mr. 
 Mackenzie replies — " Mr. Cooper charges me, in conclu- 
 sion, with having published in the appendix of my work, 
 only the documents on one side, in the controversy between 
 Perry and Capt. Elliott. In the body of the work I stated 
 and commented en the material evidence on the other side, 
 
 INCLUDING WHAT WAS ADDUCED BEFORE THE CoURT OF 
 
 Inquiry. I pubhshed in the appendix the justificatory 
 pieces upon which I had founded my account of the Battle 
 of Lake Erie. I might have added others bearino- ma- 
 terially on the question- — such as the reports of Capt. Bar- 
 clay and his first lieutenant, and the finding of the Court 
 martial on the British officers, (it never found any thing of 
 the sort meant,) but I believed that I had already published 
 enough, even making deduction, as I now do, for the dis- 
 crepant statement of one of the witnesses pointed out by 
 Mr. Cooper, to justify all my statements, and carry con- 
 viction to every unprejudiced mind," &.c. ^c. 
 
 Here, then, is Capt. Mackenzie's plea to my declaration, 
 in the case of Mr. Forrest. It will be seen he does not 
 plead the ignorance, for which I had left an opening in my 
 letter. On the contrary, he had commented on the testi- 
 mony before the Court of Inquiry, in the body of the work, 
 though he is now willing to withdraw Mr. Forrest, as a 
 witness ; that is, when he is exposed, and is no longer ten- 
 able. Among lawyers the omission to plead ignorance, 
 would be taken as an admission that he knew of the ex- 
 istence of the suppressed testimony. 
 
 Let uig sum up the facts, and come to a judgment. Capt. 
 
82 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 Mackenzie professes to write history. In this history he 
 strongly criminates an officer, who was an actor in a par- 
 ticukir battle. He furnishes the evidence by which he 
 justifies his history, and his criminations. Not satisfied 
 with suppressing the eviddnce of one whole side, he eveni 
 suppresses the evidence of one of his own witnesses, whent 
 it makes against himself; producing that portion only 
 which sustains his theory, though less entitled to respected 
 than that he suppressed. He is told of this fault, by one 
 who allows it may have proceeded from ignorance ; he 
 does not plead ignorance in his defence, but thinks the 
 point is disposed of because he had cotnmented on the sup- 
 pressed testimony in the body of his work. 
 
 Now what sort of commentary in the body of the work, 
 would be a justification for publishing the letter of Mr. 
 Forrest, and suppressing the testimony before the Court 
 of Inquiry ? Clearly none but such as would altogether 
 explain away the last, leaving to the first its complete au- 
 thority. When Capt. Mackenzie tells the pubhc, in answer 
 to a statement as distinct as that I had made in the Eve- 
 ning Post, that he had commented on the testimony before 
 the Court of Inquiry, the public had a right to suppose 
 that these comments justified his using the letter, and sup- 
 pressing the sworn evidence. It remains, therefore, to 
 ascertain how far this is true, or untrue. 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie incidentally mentions the court of 
 1815, in two or three places in his book, without touching 
 on the character of the evidence, however. The last is 
 done, only, at page 159, vol. 2d, where the following pas- 
 sage is to be found ; viz. — 
 
 " In April, 1815, soon after the date of this letter, a 
 Court of Inquiry, consisting of three members, was held in 
 New York for the purpose of investigating the losses of the 
 President, Frolic and Rattlesnake. Capt. Elliott, being at 
 the time in New York, in command of the sloop Ontario, 
 applied to the Navy Department to instruct this court to 
 inquire into the conduct of the Niagara while under his 
 command in the battle on Lake Erie, and whether the 
 Niagara attempted to " make away," as stated in the find- 
 ing of the British court-martial on Com. Barclay. The 
 Secretary immediately instructed the court, that it having 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 83 
 
 jbeen stated to him tliat, by the proceetlini^s of a Court of 
 ,Tnquiry in Great Britain, the conduct of Capt Elliott had 
 jDcen "misrepresented," justice to the reputation of Capt. 
 Elliott and to the navy of the United States required that 
 a true statement of the facts in relation to his conduct 
 on that occasion should be exhibited to the world. The 
 court was therefore directed to inquire into the same, as- 
 certain the part he had sustained during the action, and 
 report to the Department. The court immediately pro- 
 ceeded to the examination of seven witnesses, five of whom 
 belonged to the Niagara, while two of the Lawrence's offi- 
 cers were introduced to give a color of impartiality to the 
 transactions. The evidence of the minority was, of 
 COURSE BORNE DOWN, and the court came to the highly 
 patriotic conclusion that^ instead of the Niagara making 
 AWAY FROM THE QuEEN Charlotte, the Quceji Charlotte 
 bore off from the fire of the Niagara, [t gave no reason, 
 however, why the Niagara did not follow her. The court 
 was begun and ended with the utmost celerity. In the 
 investigation of the case, neither tiie commanding officer on 
 the occasion, nor any of the commanders of the small 
 vessels, were summoned to give their evidence." 
 
 This is all Capt. Mackenzie says of the Court of Inquiry. 
 These are his comments ! First, then, as to Mr. Forrest. 
 Do the comments tell the reader that, Mr. Forrest, before 
 this court, swore directly contrary to the most material 
 part of that evidence of his which Capt. Mackenzie has 
 paraded before the world, in his book ! So far from this, 
 it leaves the reader to suppose that the evidence of the 
 two officers of the Lawrence, of whom Mr. Forrest was 
 one, was altogether in favor of his theory, but was borne 
 down by the evidence of the Jive witnesses of the Niagara. 
 I hope those persons ^vho are ready to canonize Capt. 
 Mackenzie as a saint, without waiting the customary 
 century, will bear this whole matter in mind, To me, I 
 confess it fully sustains the charges I have given as the 5th. 
 
 But, bad as Capt. Mackenzie has left this matter, on its 
 face, it is much worse when we come to look further into 
 it. By this statement the court instead of finding '* that 
 the Niagara was making aicay from the Queen Charlotte^'''' 
 found quite the contrary. Capt. Mackenzie ogives the 
 
84 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIK. 
 
 reader to suppose that had not the testimony of the twoy 
 been * borne down' by that of the five, the result icould have 
 been different. The whole sentence means tliis, or it means 
 nothing:. Now, what do these two officers, themselvesi- 
 say, on this subject 1 Mr. Forrest was asked as foIlows,'| 
 and answered as follows : 
 
 Question. — '•'■Did the Niagara attempt to make off from\ 
 the British Jleet^ at any time during the action V* 
 
 Answer.— "No." 
 
 To Mr. Yarnall the same question w- as put,andthe same 
 answer given. 
 
 Question. — " Did the Niagara, at any time during the* 
 action, attempt to make off from the British fleet 1'* 
 
 Answer.— "No." 
 
 In the name of common honesty, is not this sufficient 
 to characterize Capt. iMacUenzie's book? Then, he com- 
 ments " on the material evidence on the other side," exclu- 
 sively of that before the Court of Inquiry ! Does he 1 — 
 Where 1 — When 1 — How ? As a general and just comment 
 on the objection of having substantially suppressed the evi- 
 dence against his theory, 1 am constrained to say, that the 
 fact is otherwise. Capt Mackenzie's book contains no 
 allusion, whatever, to most and the best evidence against 
 him, although he occasionally introduces a little of the 
 testimony, usually, if not invariably, to insinuate its worth- 
 lessness, rather than to prove it. He even suppresses Capt. 
 Perry's official report of the battle, quoting from it in 
 scraps, as it suited his own purposes. He says, page 280,vol. ! 
 I, " The opinion ic as general in the squadron that Capt El- 
 liott had either been actuated by cowardice, or by a treach- 
 erous desire to see the Lawrence overpowered and her 
 commander slain, and that he might take his station, and 
 by winning the victory, become the hero of the day." In 
 a note, he refers the reader to the affidavits at the end of 
 the work, to prove this cool assertion. It is true this is 
 stated in six of these eight affidavits, but the effect is only 
 to lessen the respect for the testimony, as the rebutting 
 evidence triumphantly.disproves the fact. About this there 
 can be no dispute. When wzorc witnesses testify in favor 
 of a man, than iciiXi^y against him, it is an absurdity to 
 say he is " generally condemned." This is a vulgar failing 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 85 
 
 r>f " cliques" who think they compose the wliohj earth. 
 But, why does Capt. Mackenzie suppress the rebutting tes- 
 timony, on this single point, and of which !Mr. FoRRiiST's 
 
 EXAMINATION COMPOSFS A PART 1 
 
 Take a single specimen of the manner in which Capt. 
 Mackenzie " comments" on the testimony of the other 
 side. Capt. Elliott publishes affidavits from Capt. Bre- 
 voort and Mr. Berry, the boatswain of the Niagara, to prove 
 a conversation that occurred between him and Capt. Perry, 
 when the latter came on board the Niagara. This con- 
 versation is also alluded to in the joint letter of the ward- 
 room officers of the Niagara to the Secretary of the Navy, 
 Capt. Brevoort, and the boatswain who attended the side, 
 to receive Capt. Perry, swear distinctly to what passed, 
 and they substantially agree ; but Capt. Mackenzie dis- 
 poses of the point as follows ; " The enemy were on the 
 starboard side ; the starboard guns were necessarily man- 
 ned, and it is not likely that a single officer was present at 
 the larboard gangway, by which Capt. Perry came on 
 board, except only Capt. Elliott, who came there to receive 
 him. From Capt. Elliott, then, probably proceeded the 
 statement of this extraordinary conversation ; the real na- 
 ture of it, which is so different, we have seen in the text 
 as related by Capt. Perry to Mr. Hambleton immediately 
 after his return to the Lawrence, and set down by him at 
 the time, when no one supposed it would be the subject of 
 such absurd misrepresentations." 
 
 This is commenting on evidence, forsooth! Mr. Ham- 
 bleton's unsworn account, if indeed it he his account, of 
 Capt. Perry'^s declaration, is to be conclusive as against 
 the sworn testimony of indifferent parties ! Next comes 
 the parade about starboard and larboard sides, as if every 
 officer must be stuck close in with the guns, at quarters ; 
 or, as if a human voice could not be heard across the deck 
 of a vessel of any size, especially when the speaker was a 
 little excited. This last reasoning, might be put m the 
 category of the absurdities. 
 
 On the next page, Capt. Mackenzie says — "These five 
 
 officers join in giving the words uttered respectively by 
 
 Capt. Perry and Capt. Elliott when the former came on 
 
 board the Niagara. It is apropos of this, that he goes on 
 
 8 
 
86 BAfTT-fi OP LAKE ERIfT. 
 
 to reason about the larboard and starboard sides, &Cr Now 
 the five officers in question did no such thing, as I have 
 already shown by a quotation from their letter. They gave 
 their " combined observations," meaning, that what was 
 seen or lieard by them all, should be presented to the Sec- 
 retary in a single letter. This is commenting on the testi- 
 mony ! 
 
 But I must conclude. Only one more instance shall be 
 furnished to prove Capt Mackenzie's indifference to the 
 truth. At page 4-2, vol. 2, he says — " He (Mr. Cooper) 
 has attempted to show that, if tliere was any merit in this 
 act, (the act of Perry, in passing from the Lawrence to the 
 Niagara,) Capt. Elliott exhibited it in a greater degree." — 
 This is as cooly stated, as if it were true. The note, in 
 which my remarks are made, flatly contradicts it. Speaking 
 of the mere act of passing in the boat, it says — " But this 
 was the least of Perry's merits.'^ It adds a little lower 
 down — *'Capt. Perry's merit was an indomitable resolution 
 not to be conquered, and the manner in which he sought 
 new modes of victory, when the old ones failed him. The 
 position taken by the Niagara, at the close of the affair, 
 (when Elliott had left her,) the fact, that he sought the best 
 means of repairing his loss, and the motive with which he 
 passed from vessel to vessel, constitute his claims to admi- 
 ration." Capt. Mackenzie's untrue and garbled statement, 
 on this head, compells me to tell him he has not acted like 
 a man of good faith, in this particular. It is so impossible 
 for any man to read my note, and not see what it " at- 
 tempts^'' to show, that I am almost induced to believe Capt. 
 Mackenzie has only read Dr. Duer's pretended extract 
 from it. 
 
 I could write pages on pages more to show the utter 
 wortlilessness of this book, in all that relates to the battle 
 of Lake Erie. It does not give the force correctly, audit 
 is faulty throughout. By assuming that Capt. Elliott did 
 not come into close action at all, it goes far beyond the 
 majority of even the Perry witnesses, and contradicts Perry 
 himself. Capt. Mackenzie relies for the evidence of this 
 fact on Messrs. Yarnall, Forrest and Taylor, of the Law- 
 rence, who agree in saying, that when Capt. Perry left the 
 Lawrence, tbc Niagara was from a quarter to half a mile 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 87 
 
 on tlieir weather beam, or bow. From this hst Mr. Forrest 
 is clearly to be struck, though he says, himself, he is not 
 certain of this fact. After reading all the testimony, I 
 have little doubt that this difficulty can be got over in the 
 following way. The Lawrence was unmanagable ; the 
 wind had increased, and she got a stern drift. At this 
 moment all the vessels were in motion, and by canting the 
 head of the Lawrence to leeward a little, the Niagara might 
 \ery well seem to have been on her weather bow^ when in 
 truth she M^as ahead, as regards the original position. Some 
 of the officers of the Lawrence are said not to have been 
 particularly sagacious, and wounded, occupied, and situa- 
 ted as they were, it is not surprising that they should fall 
 into a mistake on this point. The world itself turns round, 
 without millions knowing any thing about it. At any rate, 
 if Capt. Mackenzie be disposed to insist on his evidence 
 for this one fact — and he has made it the distinctive fact in 
 his history — where wilK he find himself? He will have 
 Messrs. Yarnall and Taylor to sustain him, as opposed to 
 Messrs. Perry, Turner, Packett, Conklin, neither cf the 
 Niagara, and Messrs. Smith, Magrath, Edwards, Webster, 
 Brevoort, Cummings, Montgomery, Tatem, Adams and 
 Berry, every one of whom contradict, in some form or 
 other, this particular fact, and several in various ways,direct-- 
 Jy, incidently, or bj* unavoidable implication. Even some 
 of the witnesses that Capt. Mackenzie quotes, and who are 
 silent on the point, contradict his fact by implication. Thus, 
 Mr. Champlin, where he speaks of the Niagara's passing 
 the Lawrence, uses these words — "A short time before 
 Com. Perry's going on board of her (the Niagara) she 
 ranged ahead of the Lawrence, (where Mr. Champlin was 
 himself, in command of the Scorpion,) and to windward 
 of her, brinffinff the Commodore's sliip between her and the 
 enemy, when she might have passed to leeward and relieved 
 her from their destructive fire."" This is not language 
 likely to be used of a vessel that was half a mile to wind- 
 ward ! Had such been the fact, it strikes me Mr. Champlin 
 would have been willing enough to say it. He wishes to 
 criminate Capt. Elliott, and it would have been a much 
 more serious charge to have said * you were away oflf half 
 a mile to windward,' in lieu of merely saying 'you ought 
 
86 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 to have passed inside, instead of outside the Lawrence.' 
 Nor would Mr. Champlin have forgotten to have told the 
 fact, had Capt. Elliott passed to windward of his own ves- 
 sel the Scorpion, which Capt. Mackenzie admits was in 
 close action from the beginning. Unless the Scorpion were 
 a good deal more than half a mile to windward of the Law- 
 rence, the Niagara could not have been, without going 
 outside of her. Mr. Brownell, of the Ariel, the other ves- 
 sel ahead, or to windward of the Lawrence, gives substan- 
 tially the same evidence as Mr. Champlin, on this point. 
 It is, indeed, verbatim, as far as Mr. Champlin goes. Mr. 
 Packett, who commanded the Ariel, says distinctly that 
 the Niagara was "steering for the head of the line (evidently 
 the scene of action) to windward of the Lawrence," but not 
 to windward of himself. There is something very presu- 
 ming in a writer's insisting on a fact that is sustained by 
 only two witnesses, and which is denied by fourteen, be- 
 sides being disproved by circumstances. But Capt. Mac- 
 kenzie has a trick of seeing things his own way. 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie has one passage, that, coming from a 
 seaman, or one who ought to be a seaman, deserves com- 
 memoration. He says — vol. 1, page 250 — " Perry's first 
 order on board the Niagara was to back the main-top-sail, 
 and stojj her from running out of the action, (It seems by 
 this, she was in the action, at all events ;) his next, to brail 
 up the main-try-sail, put the helm up, and bear down be- 
 fore the wind," &c. This was to cut the line. On the 
 next page he adds — "The helm had been put up on board 
 the Niagara, sail made, and the signal for close action hove 
 out at forty-five minutes after two, the instant Perry 
 
 HAD BOARD I:D HER." 
 
 Now, I do not suppose Capt. Mackenzie is so ignorant 
 of the hornbook of liis profession, as to believe any man, 
 who instantly intended to bear up, would begin by backing 
 his main-top-sail; but I do suppose he is of such a frame 
 of mind, that when he wishes to see any particular thing, 
 he loses sight of all others. The simple facts are, that Capt. 
 Elliott was abeam of the weight of the English force, with- 
 in musket shot ; (a fact which I had forgotten to mention, 
 is proved by a circumstance concerning which there can 
 be no mistake ; Mr. Cummings having been wounded by 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 89 
 
 & musket ball, in the main-top, too, about this time) the 
 brig- had fair way on her, and was drawing ahead while 
 the two captains were conversing ; as soon as Perry found 
 himself alone, ke perceived the fact, and'backed his top- 
 sail, to keep square with his enemies ; looking about at 
 the scene, he made the signal for closer action ; waited a 
 few minutes, as the schooners were closing fast ; then up 
 helm, and went through the enemy's line. Whether this 
 last manoeuvre was determined by the attempt of the English 
 to ware, and their getting foul of each other, I have not 
 been able to ascertain. If so, it accounts at once for the 
 time of the movement. Capt. Mackenzie's own account 
 of the time contradicts his other statements. At 30 min- 
 utes past two. Perry got into the boat. He had a man-of- 
 war's cutter and six men. Under the circumstances, the 
 boat would have gone the pretended half mile of Capt. 
 Mackenzie, certainly in five minutes, and as the Niagara 
 bore up at 45 minutes past 2, it leaves ten for Perry to be 
 on board, before he ordered the cliange. I understand the 
 boat did pull quite a quarter of a mile to reach the Niagara, 
 though it was ahead, instead of to-windward. 
 
 Then Capt. Mackenzie, assuming somewhat too much of 
 the de haut en has tone, for a nautical critic who backs his 
 main-top-sail to ware-ship, sneers at my calling the posi- 
 tion of the Niagara, one or two cable's lengths to windward 
 of the enemy's heaviest vessels '* commanding;" another 
 touch of seamanship of which I will not complain.^ The 
 following circumstance, however^ in connection with this 
 point, may be worth mentioning. Shortly after the arbi- 
 tration of last year, I was addressed in the City Hall, by 
 an utter stranger, who told me his name was Webster, and 
 that he regretted ill health had prevented his hearing our 
 discussion, as he knew something of the case. Mr. Web- 
 ster then went on to make his statement. He had paid a 
 visit to Perry, shortly after the battle, and had heard his 
 account of all its details, over and over again, the object of 
 the visit being to get these very details to make an engrav- 
 ing. Now, one of Perry's statements, according to Mr. 
 Webster, was that he had found the Niagara in an excel- 
 lent position. Mr. Webster has, I believe, since published 
 this account, under his ow^n signature. 
 
 I 
 
90 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE* 
 
 It is an evidence of the peculiar mind of CajDt. Macken- 
 zie, that he should cavil about the position given the Ni- 
 agara being a " commanding one," as he has d(;ne at 
 length, both in his book and in liis letter in the Post, when 
 the advantage was such that a powder-monkey could un- 
 derstand it. He might have disputed the fact^ without 
 denying the infertnce. But he disputes the inference, ad- 
 mitting the fact. 
 
 As a mere biography, Capt. Mackenzie's book is suffi- 
 ciently weak. No doubt it has many facts that were not 
 known to the public, but, the instant the writer attempts 
 to reason, he breaks down. I shall not travel out of the 
 record to prove this, though I shall cite one instance, be- 
 cause it will show that even Perry was too much under 
 the influence of feeling to be altogether just and discrimi- 
 nating in his statements. 
 
 The battle was fought on the 10th Sept. It has been 
 seen that Dr. Parsons broke ground, by questioning some 
 of the wounded of the Niagara, as early as the l'2th. — 
 Soon after a brother of Capt. Elliott's arrived, and stated 
 that reports unfavorable to him, were in circulation among 
 Harrison's troops. It is probable this is the first direct 
 intimation Capt. Elliott received of what was passing. 
 
 He now wrote a letter to Capt Perry, which was dated 
 Sept. 19th, and which has been given in his own biography, 
 and in several other and earlier publications, in the follow- 
 ing words : viz — 
 
 U. S. Brig Niagara, Put-in-Bay, ) 
 Sept.Uth, 1813. ) 
 Sir : I am informed a report has been circulated by 
 some malicious persons, prejudicial to my vessel when, 
 engaged with the enemy's fleet. I will thank you, if you 
 will, with candor, state to me the conduct of myself, officers 
 and crew. 
 
 Respectfully your Ob. Ser. 
 
 JESSE D. ELLIOTT. 
 Capt. Perry. 
 
 Captain Mackenzie makes it a serious charge against 
 Capt. lillliott, that this letter has not been correctly given. 
 He even puts this language into the mouth of Perry con- 
 
 ! 
 
' BATTLE OP LAKE EKIE. SI 
 
 cerning it ; " The note addressed to me, (meaning the 
 above note,) is altogether unlike the original," &.c. 
 Capt. xMackenzie gives the note from tlie original found 
 among Com. Perry's papers ; and it, no doubt correctly, is 
 couched in these words, viz: — 
 
 U. S. sJiip Niagara, Sept. 10th, 1813. 
 P' Dear Sir : My brother, who has this evening arrived 
 from the interior of the country, has mentioned to me a 
 report that appeared to be in general circulation, that, in 
 the late action with the British fleet, my vessel betrayed a 
 want of conduct in bringing into action, and that your ves- 
 sel was sacrificed in consequence of a want of exertion on 
 my part individually. I will thank you, if immediately 
 you will, with candor, name to me my exertions and that of 
 my officers and crew. 
 
 Yours, respectfiilly. 
 
 JESSE D. ELLIOTT. 
 
 " Capt. O. H. Perry, Erie.'^ 
 
 Now this last note is not altogether unlike the first. 
 It is substantially the same. There is no difference but 
 what very w^ell and very honestly may have happened in 
 endeavoring to give a transcript from memory. Captain 
 EHiott says he kept no copy, and when it was necessary 
 to publish, he was obliged to give what he rightly suppos- 
 ed to be the substance of his own note. He has done so, 
 as to all essentials. Hear what Capt. Mackenzie says 
 about these notes. " On a comparison of the real, original 
 letter written by Capt. Elliott, as given in the text, with 
 this letter, published in the Erie Sentinel, a month and a 
 half afterwards, and re-produced in the Life of Com. Elli- 
 ott, the reader will perceive that the whole tone of the letter 
 is changed, /rom an urgent friendly appeal to apEREiviPTO- 
 RY DEMAND." Now, 1 confcss, I am surprised that even 
 Capt. Mackenzie should not scruple to assert this, with the 
 two letters printed on the same page ! (See note, page 
 284, vol. 1, Life of Perry.) The first sentence, in each 
 letter, is simply explanatory, and the substance of these 
 preambles is the same. If there be any difference in tone, 
 in these preambles, it is against Capt. Mackenzie's view,aSy 
 by making the allusion to the Lawrence's having been 
 
9JJ BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 sacrificed by Elliott's conduct, a distorted imagination! 
 niiglit possibly see something personal, as between the two 
 captains. If this allusion can be made out, it is in Capt. 
 Elliott's favor, inasmuch as it is to be found in the letter 
 actually sent, and not in the letter published. The same- 
 is true as to the " demand," which after all, contains the 
 substance of the charge. The letters are substantially 
 identical, as to this sentence, with the exception of the use 
 of the word " immediately," which word alone can, by 
 possibility, be tortured into any thing " peremptory." But 
 this " immediately" is to be found in the letter sent, and 
 not in the letter published ! The difference in the dates 
 Capt. Mackenzie, himself, thinks immaterial, and acciden- 
 tal. Now for the answers, in which Capt. Mackenzie al- 
 les^es a difference also to exist. 
 
 Captain Elliott's Biography gives this answer, in the fol- 
 lowing words, viz : — 
 
 U. S. schooner Ariel, Put-in-Bay, ) 
 Sept. ISth, 1813. ) 
 My Dear Sir : I received your note last evening, after I 
 had turned in, or I should have answered it immediately. 
 I am indignant that any report should be circulated pre- 
 judicial to your character as respects the action of the 10th 
 instant. It affords me just pleasure that T have it in ray 
 power to assure you, that the conduct of yourself, officers 
 and crew, was such as to merit my warmest approbation ; 
 and I consider the circumstance of your volunteering to 
 bring the small vessels into close action, as contributing 
 largely to our victory. I shall ever believe it a premedi- 
 tated plan to destroy our commanding vessel. I have no 
 doubt, had not the Queen Charlotte have ran away from 
 the Niagara, from the superior order I observed her in, 
 you would have taken her in twenty minutes. 
 
 With sentiments of esteem, I am, dear sir, 
 Your friend and obedient servant, 
 
 O. H. PERRY. 
 Captain Elliott. 
 
 Here follows Capt. Mackenzie's version of the same let- 
 ter, taken, as he says, from a copy found among Perry's- 
 papers, viz : — 
 
' BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 95 
 
 U. S. schooner Ariel^ Put-in-Bay, ) 
 Sept. 19^/*, 1813. ] 
 Dear Sir : I received your note last evening after I Ijad 
 turned in, or I should Iiave answered it immediately. 1 am 
 indignant that any report should be in circulation prejudi- 
 cial to your character, as respects the action of the lOtli in- 
 stant. It affords me pleasure that I have it in my power 
 to assure you, that the conduct of yourself, officers and 
 crew was such as to meet my warmest approbation. And 
 I consider the circumstance of your volunteering, and 
 bringing the small vessels to close action as contributing 
 largely to our victory. I shall ever believe it a premedita- 
 ted plan of the enemy to disable our commanding vessel, 
 by bringing all their force to bear on her ; and I am satis- 
 fied, had they not pursued this course, the engagement 
 would not have lasted thirty minutes. I have no doubt, if 
 the Charlotte had not made sail and engaged the Law- 
 rence, the Niagara would have taken her in twenty 
 minutes. 
 
 Respectfully, &c. 
 
 O. H. PERRY. 
 Capt. Jesse D. Elliott, \ 
 U. S. ship Niagara. ] 
 
 This is the answer which Capt. Mackenzie admits 
 Perry sent to Capt. Elliott. Capt. Mackenzie says, that 
 Perry, in writing such a letter, " committed a great fault, 
 cannot be denied." It is a little odd that, reasoning on his 
 own premises, or believing that Elliott did not deserve such 
 a letter, Capt. MacUenzie is the only human being who 
 would probably ever think of denying this, his own propo- 
 sition. Deny it he does, however, in effect, at page 132, 
 of vol. 2d, where he says that the affair of Capt. Heath 
 was the " single serious fault" of Perry's Life. But a mind 
 of so much subtelty may see a distinction between a serious 
 fault, and a great fault — it evidently sees a crime in Capt. 
 Elliott's version of the letters. 
 
 Now, supposing both of the letters as given by Captain 
 Mackenzie to be correctly given, which alterations does 
 the reader fancy that gentleman treats as the most grave 1 
 Those in Capt. Elliott's note ! Such is the waywardness of 
 high intellect! Ordinary men would see a substantial alter- 
 
94 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 ^ 
 
 atioii in the assertion that the Queen Charlotte ran away 
 from the Niagara, but Mr. Mackenzie does not, while he 
 tiiinks the substitution of " Sir" for "_Dear sir" a very se-i 
 rious matter; as he does in Perry's letter the substitutioml 
 of " My dear sir," for " Dear sir." 
 
 Tn the first place, Capt. Perry, while he does complain 
 of the alteration in Capt. Elliott's note, affirming it was 
 " altogether unlike" what he had actually written, whichi 
 any man may see it is not, dots not complain of any alter- 
 ation in his own. Now, where there was so strong a dis- 
 position to take exceptions — so strong as to cause Captain 
 Perry to write to a friend that the two Elliott notes were 
 "altogether unlike," it is hardly probable the changes in his- 
 own letter would have passed unnoticed, did they actually | 
 exist. If Capt. Perry copied his own letter a Uttle care- 
 lessly, or from memory, he did the very thing that Captain 
 Elliott is accused of having done, and must be put in the j 
 same category, with this essential difference, that the alter- 
 ations made by himself are much the most material. 1 pro- 
 fess to know no more of the matter, though I have seen a 
 copy of Capt. Perry's letter, certified to as corresponding 
 to the original, v hich agrees with the letter given in the 
 Biography of Elliott. That Capt. Perry's copy is not 
 scrupulously exact, T infer from this fact. It ends abrupt- 
 ly " Respectfully, &c.," which is not the termination a man 
 would be apt to use, who felt so much indignation in be- 
 half of an injured friend — " My dear sir" even seems more 
 natural than "Dear sir," though that may depend on hab- 
 it. I have had in my possession six or eight notes written 
 from Capt. Perry to Capt. Elliott, about this time, and all 
 but one terminates " Yours truly." — The exception termi- 
 nates " Yours very truly." This was after the note of the 
 19th September, and it does not seem likely to me, that a 
 man who wrote " Yours truly" on ordinary occasions, 
 would be apt to cut off a letter like that given by Captain 
 Mackenzie with a cold " Respectfully, &:.c." 
 
 I attach very little injportance to all this — the opinion of 
 Elliott's conduct, given by Capt. Perry nine days after the 
 battle excepted — but as Capt. Mackenzie attaches a great 
 deal, especially to the " Sir," and " Dear sir," I have an- 
 swered him. There is one point, in his objections, how- 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, ^ 95 
 
 ever, which T have reserved for the last. He thinks the 
 siippression of the fact that injurious reports to the preju- 
 dice of Capt. EIHott, prevailed in Gen, Harrison's army, was 
 of grave import, and was intentionally done in the pub- 
 lished note by Capt. Elliott. If Capt. Elliott reasoned thus, 
 why did he put it into the note at all 1 His question could 
 have been put as well without, as with it. Then, by what 
 ingenuity, even of the Mackenzie school, can this circum- 
 stance be tortured into a wish to give the note more the air 
 of a peremptory demand 1 
 
 The dullest minds and the lowest moral feelings ever 
 attach the most importance to vulgar " report." Captain 
 Mackenzie lays stress on these "reports," more especially if 
 they have the salt of calumny. The man of the world knows 
 that the rarest thing in it, is pure, unadulterated truth. So 
 rare is it, indeed, that half mankind cannot recognize it, 
 when they see it. " Reports," forsooth ! Why, it was a 
 current report not long since, that Capt. Mackenzie him- 
 self, in a hand-to-hand conflict, suppressed a furious muti- 
 ny on board the U. 8. brig Somers. How many persons 
 have believed Capt. Mackenzie's own report touching the 
 meanness of Capt. Elliott, in taking refuge in Capt. Perry's 
 oflicial letter, before the Court of Inquiry, of 18151 This 
 '* report in the army," like '* the rumor" that only two men 
 were wounded on board the Niagara before the arrival of 
 Capt. Perry, has ever been a strong point on that side of 
 the question, but wisdom tells us the value of such argu- 
 ments. Sad experience may teach Capt. Mackenzie that 
 it is miserable testimony to hear it said " That the d — d 
 fool is on the larboard arm-chest, and the d — d rascal on 
 starboard" — That there is really such a thing as " evi- 
 dence" in this world, and that wise men seek it, and intel- 
 ligent and just men like to get it on both sides before they 
 make up a judgment. A lie, of the comparative interest of 
 this ' report' about Capt. Elliott, would have entered one 
 wing of Napoleon's largest force, and travelled through all 
 the corps d'armee, in a week. There is a rumor, now very 
 prevalent in this country, that Capt. 3Iackenzie proved 
 himself a coward, in the affair of the post-boy who was as- 
 sassinated in Spain, and it has grown out of the supposed 
 qualities that he manifested on board the Somers. T do not 
 
DO BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 mention this, because I think Capt. Mackenzie merit 
 ♦either accusation, for, in this, I honestly think gross injus 
 tice is done him; but to give him tangible proof of the valu 
 of * rumor.' I make no doubt he was right, in taking th 
 course he did in Spain, nor do I think he was influencei 
 by fear, in its abject sense, in the affair of the Somers. 
 have pleasure in saying this, because he wears the Nav; 
 button, though T tliink him otherwise, as wrong in that al 
 fair, as a man well could be, It is beneath the charactcj 
 of a historian to lay any stress on ' reports' of such a nature 
 unless sustained by sufficient proof. 
 
 I can give Capt. Mackenzie a case, in the service, ver 
 
 analogous in some of its features, not only to the rumors i 
 
 Gen. Harrison's army, but to the popular opinion concern 
 
 ing Com. Elliott's supposed delinquency in the battle g 
 
 Lake Erie. It touched, at one time, the reputation of on. 
 
 of the best officers in the Navy — Com. Biddle — and I knov 
 
 that nothinof but the hi<jh character he won in the war c 
 
 1812, prevented its breaking out against him, with strength 
 
 Had he been the object of unprincipled attacks, in connec 
 
 tion with party politics, no one can doubt that the whol 
 
 country would have rung with it. About the year 182C 
 
 Capt. Biddle, in the Congress, frigate, suffered himself h 
 
 be warned off the port of Cadiz, by a French block adinr 
 
 squadron, going into Gibraltar with his ship. This vv 
 
 compromising the honor of the flag, to all appearances ; i 
 
 being the established privilege of a man-of-war to pass 
 
 blockade. Again, Capt. Biddle went to the Havana, i: 
 
 the Macedonian, and got the yellow fever in his ship, sul 
 
 fering severely, and greatly to the prejudice of his own re 
 
 putation, at the time, for discretion. In both instances th 
 
 complaints were so deep as to reach my ear, though thei 
 
 unconnected with the service, except by old friendships an 
 
 feeling. Any man may have disliked the affairs, and glad wa 
 
 I to learn, years afterwards, that Com. Biddle acted, in bot 
 
 cases, under i)recise orders from the Department. He ha 
 
 the dignity of mind to forbear until a fitting opportunit 
 
 arrived, and then in asserting his riofhts as a man-of-war' 
 
 man, with proper spirit, on the Brazil station, he inci 
 
 dentally mentioned the Cadiz transaction, as a case not t 
 
 be cited as a precedent, inasmuch as the commander of thi 
 
UATtLR OP LAKE ERIE. 97 
 
 ! Congress acted under orders from his government. How 
 is it with Com. Elhott? He was astern, with his top-sail 
 to the mast, while the Lawrence was sutFering, and the cry 
 is he ought to have made sail and closed. Viewed in this 
 naked manner, it is no wonder a parcel of western mihtia 
 volunteers cried out against him. But what a different 
 case is offered when we find that the top-sail was aback to 
 prevent going into a vessel, astern of wliich he was ordered 
 to keep one hundred and twenty yards ; that this station 
 was not only given to him, but " enjoinrd" upon him ; 
 that the superior who had given the injunction was there 
 
 j to recall it, if he deemed it necessary, and that he was in 
 the best situation to judge of that necessity ! 
 
 Capt. Mackenzie thinks a ' report' in Gen. Harrison's 
 army so very conclusive against Capt. Elliott, when, on 
 its face, that army could only know what it heard. He 
 himself believed a 'report,' and had the indiscretion to 
 print it, too, when he was told that Paul Jones' sword 
 passed from Com. Barry, through two or three other senior 
 
 .'Officers of the navy, down to Com. Dale ; when the facts 
 show that Com. Barry bequeathed this sword directly to 
 
 \ Com. Dale, that it never passed down through any senior 
 officer, that Com. Dale never was senior officer of the Navy^ 
 and that he was not in the Navy at all, when he re- 
 
 \ CEivED THIS SWORD ! So much for " reports." 
 
 Another instance of the value of ' reports' is directly 
 connected with Capt. Elliott, himself Nothing could have 
 been hotter than the conduct of this officer in cutting out 
 
 ' the two brigs from under Fort Erie, and yet a * report' has 
 widely prevailed in the navy, that one of these vessels at 
 least, was given up to him by treachery — a 'report' to which 
 Perry, liimself, alludes in the letter accompanying his 
 charges. Now, this 'report' is vindicated only by ' report' — 
 rumor sustaining rumor, without a particle of any thing 
 approaching evidence, while tlie proof of the falsity of this 
 * report' is direct, complete, overwhelming — as full as be- 
 longs to any case in the history of the country ! 
 
 Awny then with these unjust puerilities, and let the men 
 
 of America, meet a question of fact like men, and not as so 
 
 many village crones gossiping around a tea-pot ! What 
 
 £ort of notions would the public obtain, what would be the 
 
 9 
 
93 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. * 
 
 character of the ' reports,' from diagrams hke those of Mr. 
 Burges's, criticism like that of Dr. Duer's, facts and docu- 
 mentary evidence Hke these of Capt. Mackenzie's ! 
 
 In the foregoing statements, 1 have not attempted toi 
 dissect a tithe of the blunders, inaccuracies, and false reas 
 oning of Capt. Mackenzie. What I have said, I trust hasi 
 been plainly said. As a rule, I dislike the argumentum ad\ 
 hominem^ but Mr. Mackenzie is a writer who provokes- 
 this species of retort, by his own fondness for it. He ap- 
 plies it to me, on various occasions, and he will now dis- 
 cover, perhaps, that be is not altogether invulnerable, 
 himself. 
 
 The reader will have perceived that Capt. Mackenzie 
 deprives himself of all excuse of ignorance, by admitting in 
 terms that he had all the evidence before him, and thinks 
 he commented on it, in the body of his book ! Thus, 
 when he accuses Capt. Elliott of the meanness of falling 
 back on Perry's official account of the battle, before the 
 Court of Inquiry of 1815, a charge that I have proved un- 
 answerably by the record of that court is not true, 7ie had 
 that very record before him^ and commented on the testi- 
 mony, BY HIS OWN SHOWING. That he had the record be- 
 fore him, might be proved from divers admissions in his 
 work itself, but his own direct declaration supersedes the 
 necessity of producing further evidence. 
 
 As for Capt. Mackenzie's pretended comments on the 
 testimony in favor of Capt. Elliott, they would appear 
 ridiculous to any discreet man who should take the trouble 
 to examine the documents. He has selected one or two 
 points, generally of a very immaterial character, and has 
 reasoned on them in his own peculiar manner, leaving the 
 great mass of the evidence untouched ! The ' peculiar 
 manner' is this — " It is not Jikchf he says " that a sin<ile 
 officer was present at the larboard gangwav" to receive 
 Perry, when he reached the Niagara. Upon this " it is 
 not likely" he infers that the oaths of those who swear dis- 
 tinctly to what the)/ heard^ were untrue ! This is com- 
 menting on testimony with a vengeance ! Now it ivas 
 likely that every offict;r of the quarter-deck, who was not 
 otherwise engaged, should go forward to receive Perry. 
 Capt. I5revoort was acting as a marine officer, and it was 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 99 
 
 rthe most natural thing in the world that he should be there, 
 rand, as for the Boatswain he was ordered there. Then 
 Capt. Mackenzie puts the brig at long shot, mhstantially 
 out of the action, and this increases the difficulties of his 
 case. What particular reason was there, if the Niagara 
 were at long-shot from the enerni/, why an officer who com- 
 manded small arm's men, and who was stationed on, or 
 near the quarter deck of a ship of live hundred tons, should 
 not approach the gangway, to receive a commander com- 
 ing on board under the known circumstances of this case'? 
 One has only to examine most of Capt. Mackenzie's dis- 
 tinctive facts, in this manner, to appreciate them at their 
 true value. The fact of Perry's coming on board their 
 brig at all, would be likely to attract the attention of all 
 the officers, who were aware of that fact, even had the Ni- 
 agara been in close action ; but, putting her at long shot, 
 wliere Capt. Mackenzie places her, it was the most natural 
 thing, in the world, that the division officers should get as 
 near the gangway as they could, without absolutely quitting 
 their quarters, which might have brought them all quite 
 within reach of Perry's "clarion voice." I state this 
 merely to show the value of Mr. Mackenzie's reasoning — 
 taking the facts as he states them — and not at all because 
 I deem it necessary to the justification of the Niagara's 
 officers. These last gentlemen meet the objection, as I 
 have already shown, in the letter, itself, in which Perry 
 and his biographer think they err, giving their statement 
 simply as the results of their united observations ; some 
 having seen one thing, some another. Tt is necessary to 
 remember, however, that when they speak of the position 
 of their brig, all these gentlemen, but Dr. Barton, testify ; 
 for those on deck could not be ignorant of that circum- 
 stance, the governing point of this controversy. 
 
 But Capt. Mackenzie has not been content to limit his 
 case to these rumors, vague and unfounded as they were. 
 He has assumed far more than even Perry, under the angry 
 feelings of 1818, and in his feeble charges, saw fit to allege 
 against Capt. Elliott. This it is which has compelled him 
 to appear as supporting a subtilty as miserable as that of 
 the " ENABLED," and has led him into so many contra- 
 dictions and fallacies. In his own book, Capt. Mackenzie 
 
100 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 gives, liimself, abundant proof that Perry never dreamed 
 of denying that Capt. Elhott brought the Niagara into close 
 action. He has done it at page 287, vol. 1, where he makes 
 Perry say — *' It was a matter of great doubt, when I began 
 to reflect upon Capt. Elliott's conduct, to what to attri- 
 bute his keeping so long out of the action." Here is an 
 implied admission that he got into action, though late ; and 
 that it is intended for close action, is obvious from the fact 
 that all Perry's complaints, charges, &c, admit that the 
 Niagara was in distant action, from a period very soon 
 after the Lawrence herself was engaged. ! 
 
 A striking fault of Mr. Mackenzie's is, the disposition 
 to defer to every thing that Capt. Perry has seen fit to ad- 
 vance, with the exception of those instances in which he 
 has spoken well of Capt. Elliott. The latter he considers 
 sufficiently answered by the circumstance that it was the 
 pleasure of Capt. Perry to recall them ! This will prove 
 to be better logic with the Perry connection, I apprehend, 
 than with the rest of the human family. Capt. Perry, 
 himself, has told us in his letter accompanying the charges, 
 that an issue had been made up between his character and 
 that cf Capt. Elliott's, else he should have remained silent ; 
 and, by his own showing, he is incapacitated to be a witness. 
 He has told different stories, and no man, after this, can 
 stand before the world, and say I was wrong in all I said 
 in his favor, and am now right in all I say against him.: — 
 In addition to this safe principle, we have the most unan- 
 swerable proofs that Capt. Perry was wrong in much — I 
 may say in most — of that which he has advanced against 
 Capt. Elhott. 
 
 He affirms (in his charges) that only two men were hurt 
 before he reached tlie Niagara ; and all, on Dr. Parsons's 
 testimony and the " received opinions" of the fleet ; for 
 there is no other evidence. I have shown what both are 
 worth. His first specification, under his first charge, is 
 an elaborate declaration that Capt. Elliott had been guilty 
 of fraud in procuring certain officers to certify that he had 
 held the conversation which has been mentioned, on comina: 
 on board the Niagara, when most of those officers were in 
 a situation which must have prevented them from hearing 
 it. Now all this proceeds from reading the letter with a 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 101 
 
 hostile feeling, its own explanation of the contents being 
 the result of the " combined observations" of these officers, 
 unanswerably proving the meaning, and of course fully 
 meeting the charge. Besides, not a particle of evidence is 
 j)roduced to show that Capt. Elliott had any thing to do 
 with the letter, and, as for the conversation, it is fullj proved ! 
 As I have pointed out the little value of these charges, one 
 of which involves a physical impossibility, or contradiction, 
 in my own biographical sketch of Perry, it is unnecessary 
 to go over the points here. There is one circumstance, 
 however, to which I Mali allude, as justice demands it, and 
 it will throw much light on the state of Perry's judgment. 
 The circumstance is this : — 
 
 Perry, while excusing his previous commendations of 
 Capt. Elliott, says in his letter accompanying the charges — 
 ** I would not allow myself to come to a decided opinion, 
 that an officer who had so handsomely conducted himself 
 ' on a former occasion, as I then^ in common with the pub- 
 lic^ had been led to suppose Capt. Elliott had^ could possi- 
 bly be guilty of cowardice, or treachery." The allusion is 
 to a malicious calumny that was got up about this time, in 
 the effort to crush Capt. Elliott, which affirmed that his 
 half-brother commanded the Detroit, and the vessel was 
 given up to him by collusion. This idle tale had a good 
 deal of circulation in the naval circles, and my attention 
 was drawn to it, while preparing the History. The ex- 
 amination 1 then went into resulted in the conviction that 
 the whole story arose from the following facts. Capt. 
 Elliott has, or had a half-brother livino^ in Canada, who 
 had once been in our army, but who marrying in the British 
 territory, resigned, and established himself there. This 
 fifentleman, Capt. Elliott assures me was almost a stranger 
 to him. A provincial naval officer, of the name of Rou- 
 lette, married a sister of this Mr. Elliott's wife. He wa» 
 an officer in the Detroit, (one of her lieutenants I believe) 
 and when his brig was taken, he made himself known to, 
 
 »his captor, with a view to reap the benefit of the connec-. 
 tion— if connection it can be called-^-in the way of treatment. 
 The same officer was exchanged, nnd again captured on 
 the 10th Sept. On this unfounded CHliimny, Pt rry has 
 suffered his feelings so far to warp his sense of right, as to. 
 
10-2 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 make the allusion I have quoted, without one particle ol 
 testimony, for none can he produced. There is no evidence 
 to be found in support of this tale, while, on the other handj 
 the affair of the capture of the two brigs has been thoroughly! 
 examined, and the proofs of Capt. Elliott's spirit, activity, 
 promptitude and zeal on the occasion, are of the most cony 
 elusive nature. 
 
 Perry is not guiltless of disingenuousness, on another' 
 point. He went down in the Lawrence, Capt. Mackenzie 
 says within three hundred and fifty yards of the enemy, 
 backed his top-sail, and engaged. Here he lay, according 
 to his own account, about two hours. I suppose he backed 
 his top-sail about five hundred yards from the English line, 
 where he lay, as mentioned. At all events, it is easy to 
 demonstrate from the affidavit of the Lawrence's sailing- 
 master, that he had some such distance as the last in his 
 mind, or his affidavit is worthless. It is possible the brig 
 may have set down materially, after she was crippled, and 
 while the wind stood. It is in proof that Elliott was about 
 as near the enemy as the Lawrence had ever got, by drift 
 or otherwise, when Perry came on board. This fact is 
 denied by Messrs. Yarnall, Taylor, and Forrest, it is true, 
 but their testi4nony is borne down by numbers, and by 
 better witnesses, including Perry himself. 
 
 The point, under this state of facts, is this. Perry, in 
 his specifications, speaks of his bearing up, &c. &c, to 
 bring the Niagara into close action^ because he took her 
 much nearer to the enemy than he found her ; actually 
 passing through their line. This fact is denied by no 
 one; and Capt. Elliott took the Somers much nearer than 
 he had taken the Niagara, in the Jinale of the piece, when 
 all closed upon the English vessels. But it is disingenuous 
 to make a naked statement to this effifct, and yet suppress 
 the fact that Capt. Perry found the Niagara as near the 
 enemy as he had then been, himself, that day. The bold 
 allegation that " Perry bore doion i\\ the Niagara, and why 
 did not Elliott do the same," is often made, but is easily 
 answered. No one can say what Capt. Elliott might have 
 done had there been time, and he did, allowing for the 
 difference in time in clo>«ing, all that Perry liad done, up 
 to the moment when he left his brig — that is to say, he had 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 103 
 
 got as near, or about as near to the enemy, as the Law- 
 rence ever got. I say ^^about as near" — for some swear 
 nearer^ and others about as near ; and I choose the safer 
 expression. 
 
 It is by confounding the accusations against, and the 
 acts of, Capt. Elliott, in this manner, that I conceive so 
 strong and wide-spread a prejudice has been created against 
 him. To tell about a man's lying astern, with his top-sail 
 aback, in an engagement, while others are in warm con- 
 flict, is a very ad captandum sort of argument ; but, it 
 falls to the ground if it be explained that the supposed de- 
 linquent was in his station. It sounds ominous to bandy 
 *' received opinions" and *' reports" in an army, but what 
 are they, in this case, in the eyes of reason and justice"? — 
 In a word, insinuations are not proof, and, though Capt.. 
 Mackenzie may attach importance to wise aphorisms about 
 "this or that arm dliest," coming from the mouth of a 
 quarter-master, or quarter-gunner, or carpenter,, he will ex- 
 cuse me, if I look for the best evidence of which the case 
 will admit. 
 
 The charge against my history was, that it was written — 
 meaning the part connected with Lake Erie- — to glorify 
 Capt. Elliott a«d to lessen Capt. Perry in the public esti- 
 mation. The answer was, that the points I have here 
 discussed were controversial, and not necessary to, or fit 
 for history. I chose, then, to follow the facts which be- 
 longed properly to such a narrative, and which I conceived 
 to be sufficiently established. The arbitrators justified this 
 course One of those gentleman, however, dissented on. 
 the point that, having mentioned the fact that Capt Perry 
 commended Capt. Elliott, in his official report, I ought to 
 have mentioned his withdrawal of that commendation, in- 
 his charges of 1818. This dissent strikes me as unfortu- 
 nate, in more than one sense.. In the first place, i7 was in 
 proof i\\Qit the charges of 1818 had been withdrawn, and 
 of course were cancelled. Then, they had never been 
 acted on, and charges are not proof That Capt. Perry 
 did command, or " eulogize" his " second in command," 
 is out of all question, and there I contend the historian had 
 a right, and it was a duty, to look for his facts, until some 
 public act, properly consummated and adjudged, authorized 
 
104 BATTLE OF LAKE EKIE. 
 
 him to look elsewhere. But, among the other absurdities 
 into which the accusers of Capt. Elliott have fallen, is one 
 of their charges against me, in connection with this cir- 
 cumstance. They say that, "Perry accused Elliott, in i 
 1818, and you were bound to let the world know it." Novf, , 
 these very gentry excuse Perry's report of 1813, on the; 
 ground that the truth would have destroyed Capt. Elliott, 
 and that he acted from a "benevolent ambiguity." He, 
 Perry, who was persuaded of Elliott's delinquency, might 
 do this, and remain a saint ; while 1, who, to say the veryt 
 least, believe that Elliott's delinquency admitted of many 
 doubts, might not do the same thing, without being a sin- 
 ner ! How was I to state this simple fact, and not leave a 
 deep historical taint on the reputation of Capt. Elliott ? — 
 Did they expect me to go into the subject at length 1 Well, 
 if I had, it would have been somewhat in the mode it has 
 been treated here ; would that have satisfied them 1 These 
 moralists maintain, in substance, that Capt. Perry, with all 
 the responsibility of a judge, and of high public duties, 
 might suppress a grave fact for the purposes of a " benevo- 
 lent ambiguity," but that the historian was bound to relate 
 another fact, of doubtful truth, which existed in no recog- 
 nized or authentic form, and which even if it had, was^ 
 nothing but accusation, and stood unproved, merely be- 
 cause the influence of the "benevolent ambiguity" had 
 ceased'to act on Oliver Perry's benevolent feelings ! They 
 may make themselves the historical cats-paws of Com. 
 Perry, if they please ; but they must excuse me from imi- 
 tating their example. 
 
 Again — these persons say that Capt. Perry omitted to. 
 mention the four commanders of the schooners astern, be- 
 cause Capt. Elliott had reported ill of them. Here, then,, 
 they blindly represent (apt. Perry as a man so weaU, or so 
 wicked, as first to believe Capt. Elliott to have behaved so 
 ill as to require a " benevolent ambiguity" to cover his 
 conduct, and, yet, to condemn others on his testimony ! 
 
 It is time to close. 1 could fill a volume more, in expo- 
 sing the fallacies, contradictions, absurdities and falsehoods 
 of my opponents, hut, if the public mind will receive truth, 
 at all, on this subject, enougli has already been shown. I 
 have had no pleasure in exposing the parties who have 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 105 
 
 assailed me. This is seen in the delay that has been per- 
 mitted to occur. My feelings, so far as I had any, when I 
 sat down to write the history were on the Perry side of the 
 question. Examination has changed my opinion, and I 
 hope it is not in my nature to become the instrument of 
 circulating error, in deference to popular clamor however 
 loud. Great and irreparable injustice has been done me, 
 in connection with this matter; but infinitely greater, I 
 firmly believe, has been done to Com. Elliott. I am far 
 from subscribing to all the friends and advocates of this 
 gentleman, even, have advanced in his behalf; but I think 
 him a deeply injured man. That Capt. Perry substan- 
 tially used the language imputed to him, when he reached 
 the Niagara, I entertain no doubt, for it is proved by suffi- 
 cient cumulative evidence; but I do not attach the meaning 
 to it, that has been done by some. In my communications 
 with Com. Elliott, the utmost frankness has been used. I 
 have told him that I do not appear as his defender, but as 
 my own; and it is owing to the circumstance that his 
 cause runs so much and so closely paralell to the truth, 
 that he may derive some benefit from my course. The 
 great mistake of the other side, has been a false appreciation 
 of the power of truth, and an exaggerated notion of the^ 
 deference of the common mind to persons and names. — 
 The last is great, I will allow ; but it is not sa strong as to 
 veil the light from the eyes of the discerning and upright. 
 The principles which the Great Power of the universe has 
 established as from himself and of himself, will exist al- 
 thouo-h !Mr. Tristam Buries believes the Battle of Lake 
 Erie to be a "part of the maritime affairs of Rhode Island ;" 
 Dr. Duer fancies a little school boy latin will wrap up 
 fallacies, misquotations and professional ignorance from 
 the vulgar ken ; or Capt. Mackenzie is led away by the 
 notion that all mankind are to view his hero, and his acts, 
 with the same subservient senses and judgment as he sub- 
 mits to himself 
 
 J. FENIMORE COOPER. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Certain of our readers may wish to possess cleare 
 notions of the leading incidents of the Battle of Lake Erie 
 as well as of the testimony given on the ojDposing sides 0:1 
 the controversy that has grown out of it, than can he obi 
 tained from the answers given in the body of this publica 
 lion. To aid them in their inquiries, the writer adds a few 
 pages in the way of postscript. 
 
 All the testimony that has been published, will be found 
 either in the body of the Life of Elliott, or in its appendix 
 If any other evidence has been given to the world, the 
 writer cannot, at this moment, recall it. As, however, ht 
 has alluded to the evidence of a Lt. Packett, which does 
 not appear in this appendix, it may be well to mentioi 
 that it exists in manuscript, of which he possesses a copy, 
 made by another person, for the sake of certifying to it, il 
 necessary. Those who wish to get the testimony, will find; 
 that the following persons appear as witnesses, in one shape 
 or another : viz. — 
 
 Against Com. Elliott. For Com. Elliott. 
 
 Commodore Perry, Lieutenants Smith, 
 
 Lieutenants Yarnall, Edwards, 
 
 \ Forrest, Conklin, 
 
 Stevens, Purser Magrath, 
 
 Turner, Sail. Master Webster, 
 
 Sailing Masters Taylor, Capt. Brevoort, 
 
 Champlin, Midshipmen Nichols, 
 Master's Mate Brownell, P^o®, 
 
 Surgeon's Mate Parsons, Adams, 
 
 Capt's. Clerk Breese. Cumminc^s, 
 
 Montgomery, 
 Surgeon Barton, 
 Master's-Mate Tatem, 
 Boatswain Berry. 
 
 To these lists must be added the name of Lt. Packett, 
 whose testimony fully corroborates the account of the battle 
 as given by the uriter. From the list of witnesses against 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 107 
 
 Capt Elliott must be struck the names of Com. Perry and 
 Lt. Forrest ; the first, because he admits himself, that an 
 issue had been made up affecting his own character, and 
 because he also admits that so Jong as this issue was not 
 maJe up, he had been content to give a different account 
 of the matter ; the last because he flatly contradicts liis 
 adverse testimony, under oath. The testimony of Com. 
 Turner, too, will be found to sustain the writer, and to con- 
 tradict Capt. Mackenzie, as he substantially avers that 
 Com. Elliott, came into close action, though in his judg- 
 ment, too late. The first is a fact ; the last, an opi?iion. 
 Of the opinion, the reader may judge by reading Ferry's 
 own account of his order of battle, and his injunction on 
 his commanders to keep the line, as well as the tenor of the 
 only signal he made from the Lawrence, during the en- 
 gagement, as QUOTED from the signal book, by his own 
 witnesses. 
 
 The reader will discover a great deal of contradiction in 
 the testimony. Some of it cannot be accounted for unless 
 it be by mistaken opinion. A good deal of it, however, 
 may be explained. Thus Mr. Brovvnell says: — "The 
 Lawrence went gallantly into close action, but^the Niagara 
 continued to keep at a much greater distance astern than 
 when the action commenced^ At the first blush, this is 
 contradictory, per se, and it leaves the clear inference that 
 the Niagara must have turned round, an^d receded from the 
 enemy. It is, how ever, fair to presume that IMr. Brownell 
 meant neither the contradiction nor the charge that the Ni*- 
 agara ran away. '•'■Continuing to keep at a much greater 
 distance''^ is so palpable a contradictien, as to render it 
 probable that someiliing was meant, that was not express- 
 ed. The writer supposes Mr. Brownell meant to say that 
 the Niagara continued, for some period in his own mind, at 
 a greater distance from the Lawrence, than ahe was when 
 the firing commenced. This fact is true ; and it is ac- 
 counted for by tlie circumstance tliat the Lawrence left the 
 Caledonia, and that the Niagara was ordered to remain 
 astern of the Caledonia. 
 
 Again : — Mr. Champlin has a seeming contradiction, 
 also. It has been seen that this witness, while he says 
 Capt. Elliott went to windward of the Lawrence, leaving 
 
10^ BATTLE OF LAKE ERlfi. 
 
 the latter exposed to the enemy's fire, does not say he wenw 
 to icindward of his own schooner^ leaving the just inference 
 that lie went to leeward of the Scorpion, and was, of course, 
 nearer to the enemy than his own schooner, which all ad- 
 mit teas in close action. In another part of his affidavit, 
 he says : — " It was the opinion of the officers and men oli 
 the squadron, (clearly a mistake, by the way, as more 
 testify in Capt. Elliott's favor, than testify against him !)- 
 that Capt Elliott did not do his duty in the action on tliali 
 day, and that had his conduct been that of a brave manj 
 there is no possible reason can be given why his vessel 
 should not have been brought into close action with the 
 British squadron, hefore Com. Ptrry ivent on hoard her,'' 
 The words italicised would give reason to suppose thai 
 Mr. Champlin means that the Niagara was not in close 
 action when Perry reached her; or as near to the enemy as 
 he was himself; which would be substantially contradicting 
 Perry himself, contradicting Mr. Turner unequivocally, 
 directly contradicting nearly every witness belonging to the 
 Niagara, and contradicting the just inferences that are to be 
 drawn from the other part of his own testimony mentioned. 
 It is probable that by the close action alluded to, in this 
 sentence, the witness meant the close action into which 
 Perry carried the Niagara, after Capt. Elliott left her, whicli 
 was certainly much nearer to the enemy than she was 
 when he got on board her ; but which was also much 
 nearer, than he got, himself, in the Lawrence. 
 
 The testimony may be fairly explained, in this way, iu 
 a great many places. Thus Mr. Montgomery, one of Capt, 
 Elliott's witnesses, and a man of character, says, in answer 
 to a question before the Court of Inquiry: — "Yes; before 
 the Lawrence was disabled, she (the Charlotte is meant) 
 Lore up and ran foul of the Detroit, on that ship's lee 
 quarter." As the Charlotte did run foul of the Detroit at 
 a later period of the action, and did not before the Law 
 ronce was disabled, this answer has been cited as a prooi 
 of defective memory, and consequently of defective testi-^ 
 mony on the part of this witness. But the matter is easily 
 explained. When the Charlotte left her station in the line 
 and closed with the Detroit, she fell to leeward of her con- 
 sorts, and being quite close to the Detroit, she appeared to 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 109 
 
 many in the American vessels to be foul of the latter ship. 
 
 These instances are named, to put the reader on his 
 guard, as much that appears contradictory, or untrue, in 
 the testimony, may be very fairly cleared up, on an intel- 
 ligent and impartial investigation. Still there are direct 
 contradictions that will admit of explanation on no other 
 ground than errors of judgment, opinions warped by much 
 discussion and prejudice, or positive perjury. Of the first, 
 there is a great deal connected with the manner in which 
 Perry's order of battle should be construed ; of the second, 
 there is even more, as is evident from the tenor of many of 
 the affidavits of those who testify against Capt. Elliott, the 
 witnesses going out of their way to relate rumors, and im- 
 material facts that they think will tell, thus lessening their 
 own credibility rather than injuring the party they ass-ail ; 
 of the last, the writer sees no reason for suspecting any. 
 
 An attempt was made before the arbitrators, in 1842, to 
 elevate the personal characters of the Perry witnesses, at 
 the expense of the Elliott witnesses. Nothing is more cer- 
 tain than the fact that the testimony of one honest and in- 
 telligent man, is worth more than the testimony of a dozen 
 fools or knaves, but there is no reason to believe there was 
 any superiority of character or intelligence, in favor of the 
 witnesses who testify against Com. Elliott. Judging from 
 the testimony ^ on its face^ most clear headed persons 
 would think, the writer is persuaded, that the Elliott testi- 
 mony, as a whole, comes from the clearest minds and the 
 least prejudiced intentions. As for professional character, 
 a point that was much insisted on, the writer is not aware 
 of any particular advantage enjoyed by the side f)f Com. 
 Perry. It is true, that three of his witnesses, Messrs. 
 Turner, Stevens, and Taylor have risen to be post captains, 
 and the first now wears a broad pennant ; but this is entirely 
 owing to accident, their equals in rank, on the other side 
 of the question, having died, with good characters, as lieu- 
 tenants. Had Messrs. Smith, Edwards, Webster, &c. lived 
 a few years longer, they would have been captains too. — 
 The late Capt. Stevens was a good officer, beyond a doubt, 
 and he proved himself a brave man on other occasions ; 
 but so did several of the Elliott witnesses. Com. Turner 
 is a good officer, and a respectable and highly honorable 
 10 
 
110 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 and honest man ; but he contradicts, in effect, Capt. Mack- 
 enzie and all that clique. His condemnation of Com. El- 
 liott, as connected with the batlle, is purely a matter of 
 opinion. He evidently thinks Elliott ought to have put a 
 different construction on the order of battle, wherein the 
 writer thinks he is manifestly wrong. 
 
 It is a failing of the other side to extol all their ' geese as 
 swans ' While the history was in progress, various at- 
 tempts were luade to convince the writer of the superiority 
 of the Perry witnesses, and of their greater claims to credi- 
 bility. One <:f them, in particular, was paraded before him 
 as a man of singular claims to respect. The testimony of 
 this witness was far from telling in his favor, and the writer 
 took the trouble to enquire into his character, of different 
 impartial persons — of officers, indeed, vvho are unfriendly 
 to Com Elliott — and the answer was uniform — the witness 
 was believed to be one of the weakest men in the navy ! 
 
 As respects the witnesses, the writer has treated them 
 all as entitled to credit, except when they are incapacitated 
 by their own showing. He knows that Com. Elliott's 
 witnesses are the best, on legal principles ; and he believes 
 they are much the best as a whole, on the score of intelli- 
 gence and impartiality. To analyze all the testimony, how- 
 ever, and to prove this, would require a book of several 
 hundred pages. 
 
 The entire theory of the battle, is as follows: — The two 
 squadrons were formed, as is exhibited in the diagram on 
 the opposite page. This diagram shows the Lawrence, 
 No. 3, leaving the Caledonia, INo. 4, and the Niagara, No. 
 5, in her station astern of the latter. The writer conceives 
 that the witnesses against Capt. Elliott think that officer 
 ought to have passed the Caledonia, immediately, without 
 regard to the injunction to keep tlie line, inasmuch as the 
 Lawrence was leading ahead, and was likely to be exposed 
 to a combined fire, only partially assisted. The answer to 
 this opinion is this : The order to preserve the line was 
 peremptory ; the injuries received by the Lawrence were 
 received gradually, and were better Known to her own 
 commander, than to the commander (5f the Niagara, while 
 the former l)ad the authority to call the latter to his relief, 
 a course the latter could not take without disobeying 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 Ill 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 O 
 
 
 S.2 . 
 
 a (3 rt » ■ 
 
 0) O >- u, 
 
 = 0/0. 
 
 y 
 
 -3C2a}-HH 
 
 -., ©» « '»' kft « t~" OOOi 
 
 
 CO 
 
 c ^ 
 
 "« •" .-i a <» •5^13 
 .* s J3 ai 3 s cs .ti 
 
 ^ 
 
 I-H S< « •^ O <» 
 
 o 
 ^; 
 
 IS 
 
 < 
 
 
 «» 
 
 .•V 
 
 ^•-s^ 
 
 ^1 
 
 ^r /«^» 
 
 V« be bt*-» 
 
 c a asi 
 . ••-•r «« 
 !> rt « o 
 
 c a> 2 
 cs a <J3 
 
 K^ 
 
 "J 'Si tS *^ 
 
 
 
 a ccj >^ 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 §.S * a 
 
 
 
 ^J 
 
 
 r 
 
 Bg: -S 
 
 
 <Cc« 
 
 { 
 
 the 
 !ade 
 1 tw 
 liott 
 
 
 
 
 — «- csa 
 
 
 O <bJ3 
 
 
 ^^^ ^ 
 
 
 bti'^ 0) o« 
 
 
 a ^ i; ca 
 
 
 -~ 3 OQ 
 
 
 i^.fi =1. 
 
 
 little off, 
 ited here, 
 ternmost 
 ify agaiiiB 
 ut orders. 
 
 
 , >H IE -J O 
 
 
 cS O) r. S 
 
 
 ., I * oi'r: 
 
 
 .S. W. 
 
 e repre 
 , and th 
 s who t 
 ttle, wii 
 
 
 
 03 -a >. aj cS 
 
 
 *.=:S ^-^ 
 
 
 a aj a; (» a> 
 
 
 c fe a a — 
 
 
 
 cd •" „""*— 
 
 
 " c aj ;S o 
 
 
 bc-ja ' ^ 
 
 
 a r:< -t-^ ® ® 
 
 ■-3 1 SS « 
 
 
 
 <D q; i: « 
 
 
 ^ - *- . -n 
 
 
 ., a a> «•« 
 
 
 •- iS-— a ♦^ 
 
 
 cs 2 S o a 
 
 
 ~ a. w -r ts 
 
 
 
 H "5 (B-a 
 
 
 -1 0} 
 
 
 ^S^ = -5 
 
 
 ^J^fi 
 
 
 23 il^ 
 
 
 — ? > 7} 
 
 
 rs a— ^w 
 
 
 
 2 "S .i: <= ? 
 
 
 7 b .. > 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^<a2 
 
112 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 orders; it was as much the duty of Perry to change his 
 own order of battle, if circumstances required, as it was of 
 ElUott to respect it, until circumstances imperiously de- 
 manded an exercise of his own judgment. When this con- 
 tingency occurred Capt. Elliott did assume the responsi- 
 bility of disobeying the order of battle, and passed his 
 second ahead, as is seen in diagram No, 2. 
 
 In this diagram, the Niagara has passed the Caledonia, 
 without orders, and is closing in the wake of the Lawrence. 
 The reader will find this fact authenticated by the joint 
 letter of the ward-room officers of the Niagara, page 124, 
 Life of Elliott ; by Mr. Magrath in a letter written by him- 
 self, shortly after the battle, page 128 ; by Messrs. Webster, 
 Montgomery, Adams, Tatera, Cummings, Nichols, Bre- 
 voort and Berry ; and, it agrees with the facts given by 
 Messrs. Packett, and Turner, while it is directly contra- 
 dicted, the writer believes, by no body. 
 
 It is true that a few of Capt. Perry's witnesses speak of 
 the Caledonia's going down with the Lawrence, while they 
 Sfjy that the Niagara was a long distance astern, which 
 would seem to contradict the circumstance that the Niagara 
 was close to the Caledonia, until she passed her. This, 
 then, is a question of fact, to be settled by the weight cf 
 testimony. 
 
 Of the Perry witnesses, Messrs. Stevens, ChampJin, 
 Breese, and Taylor say, in one form or another, that the 
 Caledonia went down with the Lawrence, leaving the Ni- 
 agara astern and to windward ; while Messrs. Turner, Yar- 
 nall, Forrest and Brownell say nothing on the point, at 
 all. On the other hand, Messrs. Smith, Edwards, Web- 
 ster, iMagrath, Brevoort, Adams, Cummings, Tatem, Mont- 
 gomery, and Nichols, in some form or other, contradict 
 them altogether. Now, the officers of the Niagara and the 
 Caledonia were the best witnesses as to the relative posi- 
 tions of their two brigs — they certainly knew best, whether 
 they were, or were not, near each other, and while all the 
 officers of the former, who were on deck, agree in saying 
 they were^ until the Niagara passed, none of the officers of 
 the Caledonia deny it ! But we have conclusive proof 
 that the Niagara must have been near the Caledonia, and, 
 icere the latter near the Lawrence^ the former must have 
 
BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 
 
 113 
 
 f 
 
 o 
 < 
 
 4 
 
 * 
 
 
 'f 
 
 8 
 
 0; rt w 
 
 .^ ._ S c 2 £ "S. 3? aj 
 
 ^ o I- «! « "- o p •.-' r"^ 
 5Q rA ai ci rr \n ^.t^ do ci 
 
 '^ S ?^ a3 2 a s 
 
 fc. «- t O u C " 
 
 CS C3 O. 5 - oj 
 
 bDm t ? « ti .-tt 
 
 ^^2 fc^ U. 'r, ^ ,3 
 
 •^ u o ;r I- •= cr 
 
 '^" CD '^ ^ ^ 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 Prevos 
 Belt, 
 
 
 
 &.' 
 
 ■p Z 
 
 a^ K^ as 
 
 la 
 
 
 1^5 
 
 oac^Kj J 
 
 • 
 
 1-^ 
 
 C«TP 
 
 «o« 
 
 •t 
 
 f 
 
 ii 
 
 r_ oj >> . J3 a 
 5 03 5 s S 
 
 C C *- a W.£j3 
 
 2 «-§!?•= - - 
 
 ,c 0.2 = s S o 
 H = ^C'Sr-5 2 
 
 ^ i-a 0.!-. o'— 
 O S *j -k^ ""^ aj O 
 
 ■*^ ^ ^ a * ^'C 
 
 X5 ^ ^ ffl « = 2 
 Ci (D ^ — 13.5 *^ 
 
 .S g a; ^ J^ rt ^ 
 
 S rt 5 Is =«.2 ?„ 
 ■^ ■— s s — -^ 
 
 *'j5? = ss m CS — 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 S * 9 
 
 »- w S 
 
 bc*^rt 
 
 .ss ■^ -• 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^1 
 
 ^ £ <u 
 -- a; ^ " 
 
 = X « w^ S 2 
 
 ts i* .a E_ -4 •« 
 
 10* 
 
114 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 been near her too. It is admitted all round that Capt. 
 Elliott hailed the Caledonia, ordering Mr. Turner to bear 
 up, and let the Niagara pass. This was probably an hour, 
 or more, after the firing commenced. No one denies the 
 fact, it bt'ing actually one of the out-door charges against 
 Capt. Elliott that he passed to windward of the Caledonia, 
 instead of bearing up himself, and going to leeward. Wit- 
 nesses to this fact were actually examined before the arbi- 
 trators, in 1842 ! In this manner does truth leak out 
 through misrepresentation ajid prejudice. If Capt. Elliott 
 were so near the Caledonia^ and yet so far astern^ it follows 
 that the Caledonia did not go down with the Lawrence, 
 and the Perry witnesses in all that relates to this fact, are 
 in a palpable error. That the Caledonia early engaged^ 
 is true, for she had two long twenty fours, and could fight 
 them at a distance even greater than that at which the 
 Niagara was represented by Perrj, himself, in his charges 
 to be, although that distance exceeds the distance of his 
 own witnesses by nearly one half. The truth is, beyond 
 a doubtjthat the Lawrence reached ahead of the Caledonia, 
 the latter trying all she could to close, but was l;ept 
 astern by her dull saihng and the lightness of the wind, it 
 falling nearly calm as soon as the firing became heavy. 
 
 Diagram No 3 represents the movement which occurred 
 at the close of the action Here the wind has freshened, 
 the Niagara has passed the Lawrence, (then setting astern 
 and to leeward) to windward of her, while the Caledonia 
 follows to leeward. When Mr. Turner bore up to let the 
 Niagara pass ahead, he continued fanning down upon the 
 enemy, using h\s pivot guns, until he got nearer to the rear 
 of the British line than the I^awrence had ever been, and 
 in following to the southward and westward he went inside 
 of that brig. This circumstance may also explain much 
 of the testimony, some of the witnesses making it a grave 
 charge that the Niagara passed the Lawrence to windward. 
 The fact is of no moment, as the act of passing couM oc- 
 cupy but an instant of time, while it was important to Capt. 
 Elliott to keep to win<lward of the enemy's heaviest vessels, 
 and the Lawrence having a stern and leeward set might 
 have enil)arrass<>d him It is true ('apt. Perry subsequently 
 cut the Britisli line, and passed to leeward ; but it was 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 11. 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 . 9j rt i 
 
 S._r £ -a ?, S 3 » & 
 
 CQ «ci M -^ *o ^ ^ oo a» 
 
 o ^ 
 
 
 ►— < O 
 
 Co • _= ^ .^ 
 
 !S S = = c? -s 
 
 /? 
 
 -^ G4 <*> ^ ^'^^ 
 
 
 
 bt-3 bniu i 3 i 
 
 " ■'" £ „•, * 2 u 
 
 bc= '-^ !U) « 
 
 - - (O w -* *^ *• 
 
 'J- btCl.B "'-■g 
 
 -l"3 --^ - S 
 
 .- !r ~ j3 o ;: , " t: - ■— X ■- I. 
 
 ^ « a, ;r ^ 
 
 l?^l_i 
 
 
 = ho 
 
 -• i^ 3' 3 2e ; 
 
 
 c« 
 
 
 
 J- p.. - ■ 
 
 
 - <„ - g ci.-'a ^-s - S^O 
 ■^ > 33 '■'J - t; - — '— ^^js ^ 
 
 ^ eo *J o -"* t* 
 
 , J P. 
 
 3 
 
 '■■S 
 
 £!.•- ^ OD CO — 
 
 - 3 e o 
 Co 
 
 ^ai^'o— ■" S £ E * --> S-= S ° 
 oS-c S*o^gces=so_ = 
 
 bio S S S ^ ^' fc br * bj; * a; =e " 
 co-rrtc;oc;::-bo=Jaji;p, 
 
 c" " „ w -^ a; 1^^ .H '-^ -^ S d S 
 
 C S -O -5 <u i^ "3 -'■' oj .i: ; = so o •* 
 = cd^ 31 _^ 2 bc-= biii^ J..H 
 
 ^ — r- ■= = o bi,^ -= =! o- r -J c -2 
 
 
 c5d-= u S «: J c— ii C 5 2 £&q 
 
 £ S=-S a; '^ C-C.= O.- « S 
 J C 5.S B J g a,a>— vZ • - 
 .,^-- -D^cT -bci_.f, S^5 = 
 
 "" -5 .r; 1) - be == - ^ 2 ?; j= > •— 
 g^ — '^ S ?t = § a S-S-J-' be" 
 
 =,--=z 
 
 o ? 30 
 —1 s-a 
 
 S S « o-' S 
 
 °«_— -^a* bin: a, J- <- _ ., 
 
 to 
 
 
 •2 g 2 ^' » bc^ -* is » - 
 
 ^ «« i-i n tr 
 
 « _W S 
 
 :5 .. -* P w aJ ^ 
 ij -^ -, rr > -^ rt 
 
 
116 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 
 
 after the two English ships had got foul of each other, and 
 thus permitted him to rake them both, at the same time. — 
 There is no question that Perry's movement, at this period 
 of the action, was prompt, gallant, and officer-like; but it is 
 singularily unfair to charge another with not having done 
 the same thing, when the contingency which produced it, 
 had not occurred, while it was in his power to execute the 
 same manoeuvre. 
 
 All the misconception of the public in this matter, has 
 proceeded from mystifications, which, in their turn, have 
 arisen from mistaken views, on the part of the witnesses^ 
 and narrow prejudices. The facts that the Niagara was 
 astern, while the Lawrence was suffering, and that Capti 
 Perry went closer with that brig, when he got on board ot 
 her, than she had been taken by CJapt. Elliott, were very 
 liable to misconception. They are explained, however, 
 when it is known that Elliott was in a station he was en^ 
 joined to keep, while astern, and that he went as near, after 
 passing the Lawrence, as Perry, himself, had gone in his 
 own brij^. New circumstences occurred in the close of the^ 
 affair, that called for new manceuvres. These circum^ 
 stances Perry nobly improved ; but Capt. Elliott was not 
 idle at the same time, coming much nearer in the Somcrs, 
 than Perry had come in the Lawrence. 
 
 The reader who will examine the evidence, will find 
 that these views are accurate. He must, however, reject 
 " reports," " received opinions of the fleet" that are coni 
 tradicted by the weight of testimony, and " rumors" about 
 two men wounded. When a witness, of character, like Lt» 
 Webster, swears that two men were Tcilled in his division^ 
 he must not discredit him, on the ground that Capt. Mack- 
 enzie has one of his extraordinary theories, which shows 
 that the witness must be mistaken ; or on *' inimor'''' arising! 
 not from any contradictions of a natural law, or unavoid- 
 able inference from premises fairly stated, but because 
 "rumor" itself tells a difli'erent story ! 
 
 [t is often urged to the writer that most of the officers 
 of tiie navy are of opinions against Com. Elliott's conduct 
 in the Battle of Lake Erie. This is probably true ; it 
 certainly fs amonir the writer*s acqnaintvinces But what 
 is an opinion worth, when the pariy is ignorant of facts ^ — 
 
BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 117 
 
 Clamor and assertion have been the substitutes of evidence 
 in this case, and tlie writer lias never yet met with five offi- 
 cers in the navy, let them be of what rank they might-those 
 who were in the battle excepted — who appeared to him to 
 have ever read more than the evidence on one side. Be- 
 sides, the writer, as a historian, is responsible only for his 
 own opinions. He knows how difficult it is to obtain truth, 
 and never has pretended that his work does not contain 
 mistakes — all histories do — but he feels confident that, in 
 his views of the Battle of Lake Erie, the weight of evi- 
 dence, the true nautical view of the question, and the 
 facts, make out a case far more in favor of Com. Elliott^ 
 than in favor of his assailants. 
 
 THE END. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 This pamphlet having been printed under somewhat unfavorabi' 
 circumstances, more errors of the press are to be found in it, than i 
 usual. The typographical errors will be left to the intelligence of th.- 
 reader, except in cases where they aftect the sense, but it is necessary 
 to note most of the mistakes in words. 
 
 Page 7, 5th line from bottom, "appears" should read " appear." 
 
 " 12, 10th line from top, for "circumstance" read "circumi 
 stances." 
 
 " 14. It was intended, by saying that "the Scorpion had on< 
 twenty-four," merely to point out the error of Mr. Burges 
 who says she had two thirty-twos. She had one twentyi 
 four, and a thirty-two pound carronade, according to tlui 
 writer's information. 
 
 " 15, 6th line, for " commanders," read " commodore." 
 
 " 18, 25th line, for the "a" read "d." 
 
 " 21, 19th line, for "Lawrence," read " Niagara." 
 
 " 29, 18th line, for "calibres of the guns is," read "are." 
 
 " 32, 25th line, for " have," read "has." 
 
 " 42, 6th hne, for "second," read "third." 
 
 " 55. 2d line from bottom, for "positions," read "position." 
 
 " 56, 13tli line, for "was," read "wore." 
 
 '= 57, 18th line, for "when," read "in." 
 
 " 67, Cth line, in part of the edition, "Barton's" is printed foi 
 "Parsons." 
 
 " 16, 8th line from bottom, for "Porcupine," read "Scorpion.' 
 In saying that his History has been excluded from the public schoo 
 libraries, so far as rested with those who possessed the power ol 
 recommendation, while Capt. Mackenzie's Biography of Perry has 
 been admitted, the writer had no intention to refer to any now in au- 
 thority, in the Slate Government, or to any acts since the decision ol 
 the arbitration in his favor, in the spring of 1842. 
 
 In speaking of the loss of the Niagara, it is said it was comparatively 
 greater than that of any other vessel in the war of 1812, the Lawrence 
 and Essex excepted. Perhaps to these two last ships, the Saratoga 
 ought to be added. Two accounts of the loss of the Niagara havei 
 been given; that of the official report, and that of her own surgeon.: 
 On the part of Com. Elliott, it is affirmed that the returns on which 
 Perry reported were given in by Dr. Parsons, and that he endeavored 
 to lessen the loss of this brig, under the influence of the feeling he so 
 early manifested. Dr. Barton affirms that Jive men were killed, 
 whereas the official report puts this number at fzro. The following 
 circumstances render it probable that Dr. Barton was right. This 
 gentleman speaks of a man who was mortally wounded in a ham- 
 mock before his own eyes. Add this man to the two, sworn to by Mr. 
 Webster, as killed in his division before Capt. Perry reached the Ni- 
 agara, and wc get more than are contained in the official report. Dr. 
 Barton, moreover, the permanant medical officer of the Niagara, vrould 
 be more apt to get the facts, from a scattered crew, in the long run, tham 
 Dr. Parsons, whose account, even supposing him uninfluenced by 
 feeling, as he clearly was not by his own showing, was made out in 
 time for a report written three days after the action. 
 

 ^€ 
 
 T H K 
 
 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 
 
 OR 
 
 ANSWERS 
 
 TO 
 
 MESSRS. BURGES, DUER, AND MACKENZIE. 
 
 BY J. FENIMORE COOPER. 
 
 COOPEKSTOWN ; 
 
 H. & E. P H I N N E Y 
 f843. 
 
 -C\.VV/7 
 
4 
 f 
 
 v-w; 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^'^ 
 

 0' c ° " ^' -p ^ 
 
 '2^ ■*= 
 
 ^oo 
 
 ,\ 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 ' \%^' 
 
 '-^^ <i^ 
 
 \^ 
 
 '^^' 
 
 .V 
 
 A^' ^y> 
 
 
 \\ * 
 
 
 '*. .^^ 
 
 
 An - -f 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ft < 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 x^^^. U 
 
 v^ 
 
 rC- 
 
 V * 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 •X"" 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 .0 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 6 
 
 s 
 
 <•". 
 
 
 ,0 c 
 
 x*^' 
 
 n ■ 1 V 
 
 N > « ^ 
 
 : ■■^>^^'' 
 
 
 
 
 ^f 
 
 ■\ 
 
 -^^^ 
 
 A^ . -•» 
 
 
 \ ^^ 
 
 V? 
 
 ■^z- 
 
 ^v 
 
 
 * .^0 
 
 -^^ 
 
 .3^ ->. o 
 
 \ 
 
 -0' ^ ' " . ^^ 
 
 K^ 
 
 :>0^ 
 

 
 o 0' 
 
 
 0^^ ^^ 
 
 \ 
 
 Oo 
 
 
 
 ^^^v ', 
 
 '-^^^^^-'s'^ .) 
 
 ^A V 
 
 
 .1 ,. '/ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ,\\' 
 
 •r 
 
 V 
 
 •i 
 
 
 G^' ^ 
 
 <■> 
 
 x^^x. 
 
 '"oo^ 
 
 O^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 ^ -7* 
 
 
 ^0' : 
 
 
 V s- 
 
 t * 
 
 XV, ,^' 
 
 .V 
 
 '^%^/>l.^ 
 
 
 
 ,.^'^>..e;;^^ '\ ^ " V- ^^^"' 
 
 •="^ 
 
 ^^'^^-^'^O" 
 
 » 1 ^ 
 
 ,c 
 
 v^> 
 
 V' 
 
 
 .-.'P 
 
 S -"^^ 
 
 X, 
 
 _0 "x^ y ■; 
 
 ..,><■ 
 
 #/ •% 
 
 c> 
 
 
 
 o