A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

The Naval War of 1812

T >> Theodore Roosevelt >> The Naval War of 1812




At last the sun rose, and as its beams struggled through the morning
mist they glinted on the sharp steel bayonets of the English, where
their scarlet ranks were drawn up in battle array, but four hundred
yards from the American breastworks. There stood the matchless infantry
of the island king, in the pride of their strength and the splendor
of their martial glory; and as the haze cleared away they moved
forward, in stern silence, broken only by the angry, snarling notes
of the brazen bugles. At once the American artillery leaped into
furious life; and, ready and quick, the more numerous cannon of the
invaders responded from their hot, feverish lips. Unshaken amid
the tumult of that iron storm the heavy red column moved steadily
on toward the left of the American line, where the Tennesseeans
were standing in motionless, grim expectancy. Three fourths of the
open space was crossed, and the eager soldiers broke into a run.
Then a fire of hell smote the British column. From the breastwork
in front of them the white smoke curled thick into the air, as rank
after rank the wild marksmen of the backwoods rose and fired, aiming
low and sure. As stubble is withered by flame, so withered the British
column under that deadly fire; and, aghast at the slaughter, the
reeling files staggered and gave back. Packenham, fit captain for
his valorous host, rode to the front, and the troops, rallying round
him, sprang forward with ringing cheers. But once again the pealing
rifle-blast beat in their faces; and the life of their dauntless
leader went out before its scorching and fiery breath. With him
fell the other general who was with the column, and all of the men
who were leading it on; and, as a last resource, Keane brought up
his stalwart Highlanders; but in vain the stubborn mountaineers rushed
on, only to die as their comrades had died before them, with
unconquerable courage, facing the foe, to the last. Keane himself
was struck down; and the shattered wrecks of the British column,
quailing before certain destruction, turned and sought refuge beyond
reach of the leaden death that overwhelmed their comrades. Nor did
it fare better with the weaker force that was to assail the right
of the American line. This was led by the dashing Colonel Rennie,
who, when the confusion caused by the main attack was at its height,
rushed forward with impetuous bravery along the river bank. With
such headlong fury did he make the assault, that the rush of his
troops took the outlying redoubt, whose defenders, regulars and
artillerymen, fought to the last with their bayonets and clubbed
muskets, and were butchered to a man. Without delay Rennie flung
his men at the breastworks behind, and, gallantly leading them,
sword in hand, he, and all around him, fell, riddled through and
through by the balls of the riflemen. Brave though they were, the
British soldiers could not stand against the singing, leaden hail,
for if they stood it was but to die. So in rout and wild dismay they
fled back along the river bank, to the main army. For some time
afterward the British artillery kept up its fire, but was gradually
silenced; the repulse was entire and complete along the whole line;
nor did the cheering news of success brought from the west bank give
any hope to the British commanders, stunned by their crushing overthrow.
[Footnote: According to their official returns the British loss was
2,036; the American accounts, of course, make it much greater. Latour
is the only trustworthy American contemporary historian of this war,
and even he at times absurdly exaggerates the British force and loss.
Most of the other American "histories" of that period were the most
preposterously bombastic works that ever saw print. But as regards
this battle, none of them are as bad as even such British historians
as Alison; the exact reverse being the case in many other battles,
notably Lake Erie. The devices each author adopts to lessen the
seeming force of his side are generally of much the same character.
For instance, Latour says that 800 of Jackson's men were employed
on works at the rear, on guard duty, etc., and deducts them; James,
for precisely similar reasons, deducts 853 men: by such means one
reduces Jackson's total force to 4,000, and the other gives Packenham
but 7,300. Only 2,000 Americans were actually engaged on the east banks.]

Meanwhile Colonel Thornton's attack on the opposite side had been
successful, but had been delayed beyond the originally intended hour.
The sides of the canal by which the boats were to be brought through
to the Mississippi caved in, and choked the passage, [Footnote:
Codrington, i, 386.] so that only enough got through to take over
a half of Thornton's force. With these, seven hundred in number,
[Footnote: James says 298 soldiers and about 200 sailors; but Admiral
Cochrane in his letter (Jan. 18th) says 600 men, half sailors; and
Admiral Codrington also (p. 335) gives this number, 300 being
sailors: adding 13 1/3 per cent. for the officers, sergeants, and
trumpeters, we get 680 men.] he crossed, but as he did not allow
for the current, it carried him down about two miles below the proper
landing-place. Meanwhile General Morgan, having under him eight
hundred militia [Footnote: 796. (Latour, 164-172.)] whom it was of
the utmost importance to have kept together, promptly divided them
and sent three hundred of the rawest and most poorly armed down to
meet the enemy in the open. The inevitable result was their immediate
rout and dispersion; about one hundred got back to Morgan's lines.
He then had six hundred men, all militia, to oppose to seven hundred
regulars. So he stationed the four hundred best disciplined men to
defend the two hundred yards of strong breastworks, mounting three
guns, which covered his left; while the two hundred worst disciplined
were placed to guard six hundred yards of open ground on his right,
with their flank resting in air, and entirely unprotected. [Footnote:
Report of Court of Inquiry, Maj.-Gen. Wm. Carroll presiding.] This
truly phenomenal arrangement ensured beforehand the certain defeat
of his troops, no matter how well they fought; but, as it turned
out, they hardly fought at all. Thornton, pushing up the river, first
attacked the breastwork in front, but was checked by a hot fire;
deploying his men he then sent a strong force to march round and
take Morgan on his exposed right flank. [Footnote: Letter of Col.
W. Thornton, Jan. 8. 1815.] There, the already demoralized Kentucky
militia, extended in thin order across an open space, outnumbered,
and taken in flank by regular troops, were stampeded at once, and
after firing a single volley they took to their heels. [Footnote:
Letter of Commodore Patterson, Jan. 13, 1815.] This exposed the flank
of the better disciplined creoles, who were also put to flight; but
they kept some order and were soon rallied. [Footnote: Alison outdoes
himself in recounting this feat. Having reduced the British force
to 340 men, he says they captured the redoubt, "though defended by
22 guns and 1,700 men." Of course, it was physically impossible
for the water-battery to take part in the defence; so there were
but 3 guns, and by halving the force on one side and trebling it
on the other, he makes the relative strength of the Americans just
sixfold what it was,--and is faithfully followed by other British
writers.] In bitter rage Patterson spiked the guns of his water-battery
and marched off with his sailors, unmolested. The American loss had
been slight, and that of their opponents not heavy, though among
their dangerously wounded was Colonel Thornton.

This success, though a brilliant one, and a disgrace to the American
arms, had no effect on the battle. Jackson at once sent over
reinforcements under the famous French general, Humbert, and
preparations were forthwith made to retake the lost position. But
it was already abandoned, and the force that had captured it had
been recalled by Lambert, when he found that the place could not
be held without additional troops.[Footnote: The British Col. Dickson,
who had been sent over to inspect, reported that 2,000 men would be
needed to hold the battery; so Lambert ordered the British to retire.
(Lambert's letter, Jan. 10th.)] The total British loss on both sides
of the river amounted to over two thousand men, the vast majority
of whom had fallen in the attack on the Tennesseeans, and most of
the remainder in the attack made by Colonel Rennie. The Americans
had lost but seventy men, of whom but thirteen fell in the main
attack. On the east bank, neither the creole militia nor the
Forty-fourth regiment had taken any part in the combat.

The English had thrown for high stakes and had lost every thing,
and they knew it. There was nothing to hope for left. Nearly a
fourth of their fighting men had fallen; and among the officers the
proportion was far larger. Of their four generals, Packenham was
dead, Gibbs dying, Keane disabled, and only Lambert left. Their
leader, the ablest officers, and all the flower of their bravest
men were lying, stark and dead, on the bloody plain before them;
and their bodies were doomed to crumble into mouldering dust on the
green fields where they had fought and had fallen. It was useless
to make another trial. They had learned to their bitter cost, that
no troops, however steady, could advance over open ground against
such a fire as came from Jackson's lines. Their artillerymen had
three times tried conclusions with the American gunners, and each
time they had been forced to acknowledge themselves worsted. They
would never have another chance to repeat their flank attack, for
Jackson had greatly strengthened and enlarged the works on the west
bank, and had seen that they were fully manned and ably commanded.
Moreover, no sooner had the assault failed, than the Americans
again began their old harassing warfare. The heaviest cannon, both
from the breastwork and the water-battery, played on the British
camp, both night and day, giving the army no rest, and the mounted
riflemen kept up a trifling, but incessant and annoying, skirmishing
with their pickets and outposts.

The British could not advance, and it was worse than useless for
them to stay where they were, for though they, from time to time,
were reinforced, yet Jackson's forces augmented faster than theirs,
and every day lessened the numerical inequality between the two
armies. There was but one thing left to do, and that was to retreat.
They had no fear of being attacked in turn. The British soldiers were
made of too good stuff to be in the least cowed or cast down even
by such a slaughtering defeat as that they had just suffered, and
nothing would have given them keener pleasure than to have had
a fair chance at their adversaries in the open; but this chance was
just what Jackson had no idea of giving them. His own army, though
in part as good as an army could be, consisted also in part of
untrained militia, while not a quarter of his men had bayonets; and
the wary old chief, for all his hardihood, had far too much wit to
hazard such a force in fight with a superior number of seasoned
veterans, thoroughly equipped, unless on his own ground and in his
own manner. So he contented himself with keeping a sharp watch on
Lambert; and on the night of January 18th the latter deserted his
position, and made a very skilful and rapid retreat, leaving eighty
wounded men and fourteen pieces of cannon behind him. [Footnote:
Letter of General Jackson, Jan. 19th, and of General Lambert, Jan.
28th.] A few stragglers were captured on land, and, while the troops
were embarking, a number of barges, with over a hundred prisoners,
were cut out by some American seamen in row-boats; but the bulk of
the army reached the transports unmolested. At the same time, a
squadron of vessels, which had been unsuccessfully bombarding Fort
Saint Philip for a week or two, and had been finally driven off when
the fort got a mortar large enough to reach them with, also returned;
and the whole fleet set sail for Mobile. The object was to capture
Fort Bowyer, which contained less than four hundred men, and, though
formidable on its sea-front, [Footnote: "Towards the sea its
fortifications are respectable enough; but on the land side it is
little better than a block-house. The ramparts being composed of
sand not more than three feet in thickness, and faced with plank,
are barely cannon-proof; while a sand hill, rising within pistol-shot
of the ditch, completely commands it. Within, again, it is as much
wanting in accommodation as it is in strength. There are no bomb-proof
barracks, nor any hole or arch under which men might find protection
from shells; indeed, so deficient is it in common-lodging rooms,
that great part of the garrison sleep in tents ... With the reduction
of this trifling work all hostilities ended." (Gleig, 357.)

General Jackson impliedly censures the garrison for surrendering so
quickly; but in such a fort it was absolutely impossible to act
otherwise, and not the slightest stain rests upon the fort's defenders.]
was incapable of defence when regularly attacked on its land side.
The British landed, February 8th, some 1,500 men, broke ground, and
made approaches; for four days the work went on amid a continual
fire, which killed or wounded 11 Americans and 31 British; by that
time the battering guns were in position and the fort capitulated,
February 12th, the garrison marching out with the honors of war.
Immediately afterward the news of peace arrived and all hostilities
terminated.

In spite of the last trifling success, the campaign had been to the
British both bloody and disastrous. It did not affect the results
of the war; and the decisive battle itself was a perfectly useless
shedding of blood, for peace had been declared before it was fought.
Nevertheless, it was not only glorious but profitable to the United
States. Louisiana was saved from being severely ravaged, and New
Orleans from possible destruction; and after our humiliating defeats
in trying to repel the invasions of Virginia and Maryland, the
signal victory of New Orleans was really almost a necessity for the
preservation of the national honor. This campaign was the great
event of the war, and in it was fought the most important battle as
regards numbers that took place during the entire struggle; and the
fact that we were victorious, not only saved our self-respect at home,
but also gave us prestige abroad which we should otherwise have
totally lacked. It could not be said to entirely balance the numerous
defeats that we had elsewhere suffered on land--defeats which had so
far only been offset by Harrison's victory in 1813 and the campaign
in Lower Canada in 1814--but it at any rate went a long way
toward making the score even.

Jackson is certainly by all odds the most prominent figure that
appeared during this war, and stands head and shoulders above any
other commander, American or British, that it produced. It will be
difficult, in all history, to show a parallel to the feat that he
performed. In three weeks' fighting, with a force largely composed
of militia, he utterly defeated and drove away an army twice the
size of his own, composed of veteran troops, and led by one of the
ablest of European generals. During the whole campaign he only erred
once, and that was in putting General Morgan, a very incompetent
officer, in command of the forces on the west bank. He suited his
movements admirably to the various exigencies that arose. The
promptness and skill with which he attacked, as soon as he knew
of the near approach of the British, undoubtedly saved the city;
for their vanguard was so roughly handled that, instead of being
able to advance at once, they were forced to delay three days, during
which time Jackson entrenched himself in a position from which he
was never driven. But after this attack the offensive would have
been not only hazardous, but useless, and accordingly Jackson,
adopting the mode of warfare which best suited the ground he was
on and the troops he had under him, forced the enemy always to fight
him where he was strongest, and confined himself strictly to the
pure defensive--a system condemned by most European authorities,
[Footnote: Thus Napier says (vol. v, p. 25): "Soult fared as most
generals will who seek by extensive lines to supply the want of
numbers or of hardiness in the troops. Against rude commanders and
undisciplined soldiers, lines may avail; seldom against accomplished
commanders, never when the assailants are the better soldiers." And
again (p. 150), "Offensive operations must be the basis of a good
defensive system."] but which has at times succeeded to admiration
in America, as witness Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Kenesaw Mountain,
and Franklin. Moreover, it must be remembered that Jackson's success
was in no wise owing either to chance or to the errors of his
adversary. [Footnote: The reverse has been stated again and again
with very great injustice, not only by British, but even by American
writers (as e.g., Prof. W. G. Sumner, in his "Andrew Jackson as a
Public Man," Boston, 1882). The climax of absurdity is reached by
Major McDougal, who says (as quoted by Cole in his "Memoirs of
British Generals," ii, p. 364): "Sir Edward Packenham fell, not
after an utter and disastrous defeat, but at the very moment when
the arms of victory were extended towards him"; and by James, who
says (ii, 388): "The premature fall of a British general saved an
American city." These assertions are just on a par with those made
by American writers, that only the fall of Lawrence prevented the
_Chesapeake_ from capturing the _Shannon_.

British writers have always attributed the defeat largely to the
fact that the 44th regiment, which was to have led the attack with
fascines and ladders, did not act well. I doubt if this had any
effect on the result. Some few of the men with ladders did reach
the ditch, but were shot down at once, and their fate would have
been shared by any others who had been with them; the bulk of the
column was never able to advance through the fire up to the breastwork,
and all the ladders and fascines in Christendom would not have helped
it. There will always be innumerable excuses offered for any defeat;
but on this occasion the truth is simply that the British regulars
found they could not advance in the open against a fire more deadly
than they had ever before encountered.] As far as fortune favored
either side, it was that of the British [Footnote: E.g.: The
unexpected frost made the swamps firm for them to advance through;
the river being so low when the levee was cut, the bayous were filled,
instead of the British being drowned out; the Carolina was only
blown up because the wind happened to fail her; bad weather delayed
the advance of arms and reinforcements, etc., etc.]; and Packenham
left nothing undone to accomplish his aim, and made no movements
that his experience in European war did not justify his making. There
is not the slightest reason for supposing that any other British
general would have accomplished more or have fared better than he
did. [Footnote: "He was the next man to look to after Lord Wellington"
(Codrington, i, 339).] Of course Jackson owed much to the nature
of the ground on which he fought; but the opportunities it afforded
would have been useless in the hands of any general less ready,
hardy, and skilful than Old Hickory.

A word as to the troops themselves. The British infantry was at that
time the best in Europe, the French coming next. Packenham's soldiers
had formed part of Wellington's magnificent peninsular army, and
they lost nothing of their honor at New Orleans. Their conduct
throughout was admirable. Their steadiness in the night battle,
their patience through the various hardships they had to undergo,
their stubborn courage in action, and the undaunted front they showed
in time of disaster (for at the very end they were to the full as
ready and eager to fight as at the beginning), all showed that their
soldierly qualities were of the highest order. As much cannot be
said of the British artillery, which, though very bravely fought
was clearly by no means as skilfully handled as was the case with
the American guns. The courage of the British officers of all arms
is mournfully attested by the sadly large proportion they bore to
the total on the lists of the killed and wounded.

An even greater meed of praise is due to the American soldiers, for
it must not be forgotten that they were raw troops opposed to veterans;
and indeed, nothing but Jackson's tireless care in drilling them
could have brought them into shape at all. The regulars were just
as good as the British, and no better. The Kentucky militia, who
had only been 48 hours with the army and were badly armed and
totally undisciplined, proved as useless as their brethren of New
York and Virginia, at Queenstown Heights and Bladensburg, had
previously shown themselves to be. They would not stand in the open
at all, and even behind a breastwork had to be mixed with better
men. The Louisiana militia, fighting in defence of their homes, and
well trained, behaved excellently, and behind breastworks were as
formidable as the regulars. The Tennesseeans, good men to start with,
and already well trained in actual warfare under Jackson, were in
their own way unsurpassable as soldiers. In the open field the
British regulars, owing to their greater skill in manoeuvring, and
to their having bayonets, with which the Tennesseeans were unprovided,
could in all likelihood have beaten them; but in rough or broken
ground the skill of the Tennesseeans, both as marksmen and woodsmen,
would probably have given them the advantage; while the extreme
deadliness of their fire made it far more dangerous to attempt to
storm a breastwork guarded by these forest riflemen than it would
have been to attack the same work guarded by an equal number of the
best regular troops of Europe. The American soldiers deserve great
credit for doing so well; but greater credit still belongs to Andrew
Jackson, who, with his cool head and quick eye, his stout heart and
strong hand, stands out in history as the ablest general the United
States produced, from the outbreak of the Revolution down to the
beginning of the Great Rebellion.



Appendix A


TONNAGE OF THE BRITISH
AND AMERICAN MEN-OF-WAR
IN 1812-15

According to Act of Congress (quoted in "Niles' Register," iv, 64),
the way of measuring double-decked or war-vessels was as follows:

"Measure from fore-part of main stem to after-part of stern port,
above the upper deck; take the breadth thereof at broadest part
above the main wales, one half of which breadth shall be accounted
the depth. Deduct from the length three fifths of such breadth,
multiply the remainder by the breadth and the product by the depth;
divide by 95; quotient is tonnage."

(_i.e._, if length = x, and breadth = y;

(x - 3/5 y) X y X 1/2 y
Tonnage = ----------------------- .)
95

Niles states that the British mode, as taken from Steele's "Shipmaster's
Assistant," was this: Drop plumb-line over stem of ship and measure
distance between such line and the after part of the stern port at
the load water-mark; then measure from top of said plumb-line in
parallel direction with the water to perpendicular point immediately
over the load water-mark of the fore part of main stem; subtract
from such admeasurement the above distance; the remainder is ship's
extreme length, from which deduct 3 inches for every foot of the
load-draught of water for the rake abaft, and also three fifths of
the ship's breadth for the rake forward; remainder is length of keel
for tonnage. Breadth shall be taken from outside to outside of the
plank in broadest part of the ship either above or below the main
wales, exclusive of all manner of sheathing or doubling. Depth is
to be considered as one half the length. Tonnage will then be the
length into the depth into breadth, divided by 94.

Tonnage was thus estimated in a purely arbitrary manner, with no
regard to actual capacity or displacement; and, moreover, what is
of more importance, the British method differed from the American
so much that a ship measured in the latter way would be nominally
about 15 per cent. larger than if measured by British rules. This
is the exact reverse of the statement made by the British naval
historian, James. His mistake is pardonable, for great confusion
existed on the subject at that time, even the officers not knowing
the tonnage of their own ships. When the _President_ was captured,
her officers stated that she measured about 1,400 tons; in reality
she tonned 1,576, American measure. Still more singular was the
testimony of the officers of the _Argus_, who thought her to be of
about 350 tons, while she was of 298, by American, or 244, by British
measurement. These errors were the more excusable as they occurred
also in higher quarters. The earliest notice we have about the three
44-gun frigates of the _Constitution's_ class, is in the letter of
Secretary of the Navy, Benjamin Stoddart, on Dec. 24, 1798, [Footnote:
"American State Papers," xiv, 57.] where they are expressly said to
be of 1,576 tons; and this tonnage is given them in every navy list
that mentions it for 40 years afterward; yet Secretary Paul Hamilton
in one of his letters incidentally alludes to them as of 1,444 tons.
Later, I think about the year 1838, the method of measuring was changed,
and their tonnage was put down as 1,607. James takes the American
tonnage from Secretary Hamilton's letter as 1,444, and states (vol.
vi, p. 5), that this is equivalent to 1,533 tons, English. But in
reality, by American measurement, the tonnage was 1,576; so that
even according to James' own figures the British way of measurement
made the frigate 43 tons smaller than the American way did; actually
the difference was nearer 290 tons. James' statements as to the size
of our various ships would seem to have been largely mere guesswork,
as he sometimes makes them smaller and sometimes larger than they
were according to the official navy lists. Thus, the _Constitution_,
_President_, and _United States_, each of 1,576, he puts down as of
1,533; the _Wasp_, of 450, as of 434; the _Hornet_, of 480, as of 460;
and the _Chesapeake_, of 1,244, as of 1,135 tons. On the other hand
the _Enterprise_, of 165 tons, he states to be of 245; the _Argus_
of 298, he considers to be of 316, and the _Peacock_, _Frolic_, etc.,
of 509 each, as of 539. He thus certainly adopts different standards
of measurement, not only for the American as distinguished from the
British vessels, but even among the various American vessels themselves.
And there are other difficulties to be encountered; not only were
there different ways of casting tonnage from given measurements,
but also there were different ways of getting what purported to be
the same measurement. A ship, that, according to the British method
of measurement was of a certain length, would, according to the
American method, be about 5 per cent. longer; and so if two vessels
were the same size, the American would have the greatest nominal
tonnage. For example, James in his "Naval Occurrences" (p. 467) gives
the length of the __Cyane's__ main deck as 118 feet 2 inches. This
same _Cyane_ was carefully surveyed and measured, under orders from
the United States navy department, by Lieut. B. F. Hoffman, and in
his published report [Footnote: "American State Papers," xiv, p.
417.] he gives, among the other dimensions: "Length of spar-deck,
124 feet 9 inches," and "length of gun-deck 123 feet 3 inches." With
such a difference in the way of taking measurements, as well as of
computing tonnage from the measurements when taken, it is not surprising
that according to the American method the _Cyane_ should have ranked
as of about 659 tons, instead of 539. As James takes no account of
any of these differences I hardly know how to treat his statements
of comparative tonnage. Thus he makes the _Hornet_ 460 tons, and
the _Peacock_ and _Penguin_, which she at different times captured,
about 388 each. As it happens both Captain Lawrence and Captain Biddle,
who commanded the _Hornet_ in her two successful actions, had their
prizes measured. The _Peacock_ sank so rapidly that Lawrence could
not get very accurate measurements of her; he states her to be four
feet shorter and half a foot broader than the _Hornet_. The British
naval historian, Brenton (vol. v, p. 111), also states that they
were of about the same tonnage. But we have more satisfactory evidence
from Captain Biddle. He stayed by his prize nearly two days, and
had her thoroughly examined in every way; and his testimony is, of
course, final. He reports that the _Penguin_ was by actual measurement
two feet shorter, and somewhat broader than the _Hornet_, and with
thicker scantling. She tonned 477, compared to the _Hornet's_ 480--a
difference of about one half of one per cent. This testimony is
corroborated by that of the naval inspectors who examined the
_Epervier_ after she was captured by the _Peacock_. Those two vessels
were respectively of 477 and 509 tons, and as such they ranked on
the navy lists. The American _Peacock_ and her sister ships were
very much longer than the brig sloops of the _Epervier's_ class,
but were no broader, the latter being very tubby. All the English
sloops were broader in proportion than the American ones were; thus
the __Levant_, which was to have mounted the same number of guns as
the _Peacock_, had much more beam, and was of greater tonnage,
although of rather less length. The _Macedonian_, when captured,
ranked on our lists as of 1,325 tons, [Footnote: See the work of
Lieutenant Emmons, who had access to all the official records.] the
_United States_ as of 1,576; and they thus continued until, as I
have said before, the method of measurement was changed, when the
former ranked as of 1,341, and the latter as of 1,607 tons. James,
however, makes them respectively, 1,081, and 1,533. Now to get the
comparative force he ought to have adopted the first set of measurements
given, or else have made them 1,081 and 1,286. Out of the twelve
single-ship actions of the war, four were fought with 38-gun frigates
like the _Macedonian_, and seven with 18-gun brig sloops of the
_Epervier's_ class; and as the _Macedonian_ and _Epervier_ were both
regularly rated in our navy, we get a very exact idea of our antagonists
in those eleven cases. The twelfth was the fight between the
_Enterprise_ and the _Boxer_, in which the latter was captured; the
_Enterprise_ was apparently a little smaller than her foe, but had
two more guns, which she carried in her bridle ports.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.