The fact that no more were published thereafter is of itself
unfortunate; and from the various contradictions it contains it
would appear to have been tampered with. The surgeon's report
accompanying it is certainly false. Subsequent to 1812 no letter
of a defeated British commander was published, [Footnote: Except
about the battles on the Lakes, where I have accordingly given the
same credit to the accounts both of the British and of the Americans.]
and I have to depend upon the various British historians, especially
James, of whom more anon.

The American and British historians from whom we are thus at
times forced to draw our material regard the war from very different
stand-points, and their accounts generally differ. Each writer
naturally so colored the affair as to have it appear favorable to
his own side. Sometimes this was done intentionally and sometimes
not. Not unfrequently errors are made against the historian's own
side; as when the British author, Brenton, says that the British
brig _Peacock_ mounted 32's instead of 24's, while Lossing in his
"Field-Book of the War of 1812" makes the same mistake about the
armament of the American brig _Argus_. Errors of this description
are, of course, as carefully to be guarded against as any others.
Mere hearsay reports, such as "it has been said," "a prisoner on
board the opposing fleet has observed," "an American (or British)
newspaper of such and such a date has remarked," are of course to
be rejected. There is a curious parallelism in the errors on both
sides. For example, the American, Mr. Low, writing in 1813, tells
how the _Constitution_, 44, captured the _Guerriere_ of 49 guns,
while the British Lieutenant Low, writing in 1880, tells how the
_Pelican_, 18, captured the _Argus_ of 20 guns. Each records the
truth but not the whole truth, for although rating 44 and 18 the