The battle of Lake Erie, or, Answers to Messrs. Burges, Duer, and Mackenzie

Preface

In his biography of Perry, Graham's Magazine, 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 by 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 public authorities were concerned, excluded from the District School Libraries, and all on account 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.

Cooperstowriy May^ \Qth^ 1843.

BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE.

Shortly after the appearance of the history of the Navy of the United States, bitter and conjbined 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, charo^es 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 government has never acted on these charges, it is matter of notoriety that they have given rise to several distinct controversies, of which it is to be hoped that the present will be the last. A brief narrative of the history of these controversies will assist the reader in better understanding the subject.

The battk of Lake l'>rie was remarkable for a feature that is almost, if not entirely, without example in the annals of naval combats Although fhe 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*

O 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 evidence I can find of any thing like a disposition to arraign Capt. Elliott, is connected with one of these officers. Dr. Usher Parsons, then a surgeon's mate on board the Lawrence, 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, went to the latter vessel " the second day aftej- the action"^to dress the wounds ; her own surgeon Di\ 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 before, or after Capt. Perry reached their bris^. As it has been alleged that Capf. Elliott betrayed a consciousness of guilt, by his moving so early in the matter, this circumstance 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 week 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 different officers, principally if not all of the Niagara, in justification 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 circulation. 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 enemies 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.

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 published as forming part of the sentence, which observations, among other errors and loose statements, asserted that the Niagara "had not been engaged," and "was making away," vvhen Capt. Perry reached her. A Court of Inquiry was sitting in the Harbor of New York, when this supposed statement of tlie British court first appeared in America, and Capt. Elliott immediately asked that the facts miofht be investioated. 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 acquittal of Capt. Elliott. Tbe 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 occurred, 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 conduct 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 correspondence Capt. Elliott challenged Capt. Perry, and was told, in answer, that the latter had prepared charges against him, requesting a court for his trial. These charges appear to have been sent, accompanied by a letter to the Secretary of the date of x4.ugust 10th 1818. Along with the charges there appeal's, 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 entraffed in the action. Of these witnesses, it may be well to say, that Messrs. Parsons, Breese, Taylor, Champliii and Brownell, all appear to have been natives of Rhode Island, and to have accompanied Capt. Perry when he left that state ; and Mr. Turner, though a nativR 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. Klliott's brig a few days before t!io battle, on account of a misunderstanding, and that he subsequently believed that his own name was left out of the official account of the action, in consequence 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, though every man in the least acquainted with human nature, must see that, in a question of opinions, circumstances of this sort may very well inHuence 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 Burges, modestly claims the Baltic of Lake Erie "as a part of the maritime affairs of Rhode Island,"* the fact obtains peculiar significance. One thing is certain ; no officer out of the Lnwrence, Mr. Stevens excepted, is found to give testimony against Capt. Elliott, unless a native, or a resident of that State, and more th m usually connected with his commander.

The government did not act on Captain Perry's charges. 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 intimate friend of Capt. Perry's, and he is said to have deprecated the course of the latter, and to have begged the charges, in order to gain tmie 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 Burg^ea's Lectures, Preface page 5 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 m his last cruise, left copies of his charges, with the accompaning 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 the hands of Com. Decatur, at his death. The diffi^rence is not very material, and it is quite possible that both statements may be true. It seems to be certain 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 original charges of Perry, against Capt. Elliott, or their copies, or both, as the case mav have been, together with the affidavits. A iQ\y 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 Washington, in consequence of his connection with the recent duel, as is affirmed by Com. Elliott. Of this fact, 1 profess to know nothing, beyond the manner of the publication. This appeal to the public brought replies ; new questions first appeared in the affidavits, and rebutting testimony was obtained by Capt. Elliott to meet the new char<ies. 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 produced 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. Elliott, at that time, was a political attack, that was characterized 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 profligacy, 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 considerable ingenuity, but I am far from subscribing to all its conclusions. It is the reasoning of a lawyer, rather than of a seaman, and is written too much in the feeling of partisanship not to be obnoxious to criticism. Still it is infinitely fairer in spirit, more logical, and everyway more lespectable, than either of the works to which it is my duty now to reply. It has one merit, that is altogether wanting to my 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 imitated 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 eflfect 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 i after a long and critical examination of all the evidence I I could obtain, and with a firm conviction that the contro- 5 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 having 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 justify what I have done, while I expose the errors, to use a mild term, of those who have gainsay ed it.

The first attack on the History was made by an'^article in the Commercial Adv ertiser, which ran through four numbers, and for which, as it contained gross personal imputations, I prosecuted the editor for a Hbeh It is now understood that this article was written by Mr. William A. Duer, late President of Columbia College.

A review in the North American followed, which assailed the account of the Battle of Lake Erie, making it a particular 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 only 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 jio 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 virtually 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 etilo^iums 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. Perry'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 difterent individuals who have thus been the agents of an attempt to bring me and my labors into disrepute with the nation. Mr. B urges 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 object in view, it is not surprising that our accounts conflict a little. This difference compels me ta justify my own, by demonstrating the value of those of the other side. Personally, I know nothing to influence Mr. Burges but the circumstance that he was a Rhode Island man, and that he had given himself so diflScult a task.

Mr. Duer is nearly a stranger to me. His article was written with pecuUar mahgnancy, and is marked by statements, 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 persons may think it pertinent if I add that Mr. Duer is Mr. Mackenzie's uncle by marriage.

The agency of Capt. Mackenzie in tliis 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 deahng with facts, shall be laid fairly before him.

First, then, in reply to the lecture of Mr. Purges : It is to be presumed that the State of Rhode Island will not defend the literary merit of this very extraordinary production, of which the very first sentence is so peculiar, that it is welcome to appropriate it to itself also. " It is the purpose of the present lecture," commences Mr. Burges ** to give a concise narrative of the fleet and battle on Lake Erie." What is meant by a " narrative of a fleet," I am unable 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 examined as they may arise, let us proceed at once to the material points. I object to Mr. B urges —

1st. That he assumes general facts in direct opposition to known truths ;

2. That his witnesses, according to his own shovAdng, 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 inv^olve gross physical impossibilities.

If all this be shown, it is fair to presume that the rest of the repubhc 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. Burges has the following statements, all of which are opposed to known truths : —

He says^ — " in the summer of 1812, Oliver Hazard Perry, of Rhode Island, a young man. Captain in the United States Navy, ifcc." 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 ordered 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 launched, until a short time previously to the battle.

He says, " The British had, hy land^ as well as by water, 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 an 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 of them the best of that blood, the Rhode Island stock. — These, (the Yankees who accompanied Perry from Newport) with a few more shipwrights, smiths, caulkers, riggers 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 axemen built a cathedral in the woods. The vessels were constructed under a contract, by regular New- York shipwrights, sent to Erie for that purpose. The men that Perry 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 boys^ 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 exception of the two last, are wrong. The Lawrence and Niao-ara had each eighteen thirty -two pound carronades ; the Ariel had four tivelves ; 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, arid intended merely to carry guns and men ; and bring them down along side of their adversary ^ 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 seen 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 himself, 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 Island 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." Thei'C was no commodore, 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 Americans, Perry and Elliott. 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 iirst ten or twelve pages of Mr. Burges's opening.

As my answer to Capt. Mackenzie will 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 jjoints. " He (Perry)" says Mr. Buro-es, " ran down till every carronade and musket might reach its mark. Taylor (the saihng-master of Perry's brig) says within canister distance ; Perry says, in his despatch and account of the battle, at half canister ; and Yarnell, 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 1 stand to the foot of the bridge." Here we have three witnesses to the material fact of the distance at which Perry engaged the enemy, and each differing from the other 1 As if this were not sufficient, Mr. Burges gives what he says is an extract from the Lawrence's lag book, page 83, in which are the following 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 difering from all the others !

He sometimes contradicts his own witnesses. This Mr. Burges has done, in the instance just quoted. After giving " canister shot," " half-canister," " musket" and "half-musket," as the distances at which Perry engaged in the Lawrence, he very cooly sets down this distance, himself, as " 150 feet !" Not satisfied with taking this great liberty with the testimony, he goes on to say, " In this position, at this slaughtering 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. 'I'hat 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 Caledonia, a brig totally without quarters, join in this melee, and actually pass hetween the combatants ! I presume it is unnecessary to tell any man who has the slightest knowledge of gunnery, that such an occurrence is virtually impossible. This is just the distance at which two ninetygun ships would go foul, to avoid each other's fire. Missing would be impossible, and of course, a protracted engagement impossible. When ships touch, the guns cannot be effectively trained ; but, at 150 feet, shot, of all sizes, could be sent directly into the ports of the antagonist. Ten minutes 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 eftect 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 r adds, " be it remembered, was, in close action at half cahWs length,''^ page 35. Now, in his appendix, Mr Burges gives Perry's own account of his order of battle, in the§e words — "An order directing in what manner the line of battle should be formed ; the several vessels to keep within half cahWs length of each other, &c." page 99. Here then Mr. Burges cooly puts down the distance between the American ships, as the distance at which the enemy was to be fought, and in direct opposition to Perry's own account, this beino: 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 quarters, 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 ^'i 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's account of his orders were true. As Perry led, he would have been the first man to disobey his own orders.