criticised him they never went into details, confining themselves
to some remark about "hurling" his figures in his face with
"loathing." Even Cooper, interesting though his work is, has gone
far less into figures than he should, and seems to have paid little
if any attention to the British official statements, which of
course should be received as of equal weight with the American.
His comments on the actions are generally very fair, the book never
being disfigured by bitterness toward the British; but he is
certainly wrong, for example, in ascribing the loss of the
_Chesapeake_ solely to accident, that of the _Argus_ solely to her
inferiority in force, and so on. His disposition to praise _all_
the American commanders may be generous, but is nevertheless unjust.
If Decatur's surrender of the _President_ is at least impliedly
praised, then Porter's defence of the _Essex_ can hardly receive
its just award. There is no weight in the commendation bestowed
upon Hull, if commendation, the same in kind though less in degree,
is bestowed upon Rodgers. It is a great pity that Cooper did not
write a criticism on James, for no one could have done it more
thoroughly. But he never mentions him, except once in speaking of
Barclay's fleet. In all probability this silence arose from sheer
contempt, and the certainty that most of James' remarks were false;
but the effect was that very many foreigners believe him to have
shirked the subject. He rarely gives any data by which the statements
of James can be disproved, and it is for this reason that I have
been obliged to criticise the latter's work very fully. Many of
James' remarks, however, defy criticism from their random nature,
as when he states that American midshipmen were chiefly masters and
mates of merchantmen, and does not give a single proof to support
the assertion. It would be nearly as true to assert that the
British midshipmen were for the most part ex-members of the