EFFECTUALLY stopped by these repeated miscarriages, General
Pakenham, with fully five thousand good soldiers at his command,
decided to wait an entire week for Major-General Lambert, who was then
on his way with two fresh regiments. In the meanwhile Pakenham adopted
a suggestion made first by Vice-Admiral Cochrane,[548] to prepare for
throwing a force across the river to turn Jackson’s line from the
opposite bank. The plan required that the Villeré canal should be
extended through the levee to the river without the knowledge of the
Americans. Perhaps Pakenham would have done better by dragging his
boats across the intervening space; but he preferred to dig a canal,
and the work, begun January 4, was done so successfully that until
January 6, when it was completed, Jackson did not suspect the movement.
On the same day Lambert’s division arrived.
From this week of inaction the Americans gained little advantage. The
lines were strengthened; but although the Kentucky reinforcements, more
than two thousand in number, under General Thomas and John Adair,
arrived January 4, they were ill provided with arms, and Jackson
could furnish them neither with arms, clothing, nor equipment. The
Louisiana militia were in the same condition. Jackson did his utmost
to supply these wants; the people of New Orleans did more, and lent at
last the few hundred muskets reserved against the danger of a slave
insurrection,[549] until in the end, if Adair was correct, a thousand
of the Kentuckians were placed in the line of battle. Yet after all the
reinforcements had been mustered, Jackson’s main dependence was still
on his artillery and his intrenchments. In the open field he could not
meet the British force.
In his immediate front, Jackson had little to fear. Three thousand
marksmen, behind intrenchments everywhere at least five feet high,
defended by heavy guns and supported by the “Louisiana” on the river
and a strong battery on the opposite shore, could defy twice or three
times their number advancing across an open plain under fire of eight
or ten heavy guns. The result of the artillery battle of January 1,
as well as the reconnaissance of December 28, showed what the British
general and his staff thought of their chances in a front attack. Twice
they had refused to attempt it when Jackson’s lines were unfinished;
they were not likely to succeed when the lines were strengthened by
another week of labor.
In his direct front, therefore, Jackson had reason to think that the
British did not intend serious attack. Their next attempt could hardly
fail to be a flanking movement. Jackson had been surprised, December
23, by such a movement, and feared nothing so much as to be surprised
again. For this reason he still kept a large body of troops, three
regiments of Louisiana militia, on the north of the city.[550] “His
greatest fear, and hence his strongest defence next to the one occupied
by himself, was on the Chef Menteur road, where Governor Claiborne, at
the head of the Louisiana militia, was posted.” He kept close watch
on the bayous which extended on his immediate flank, and constructed
other lines in his rear to which he could retreat in case his left
flank should be turned through the swamp. Apparently the idea did not
occur to him that the British might more easily turn his right flank by
throwing a force across the river; and when he learned, January 7, that
the British were engaged in making this movement, the time had already
passed when he could prevent it.
No means had been provided for transporting troops directly from one
bank of the river to the other. If obliged to protect the batteries
established by Commodore Patterson on the west bank, Jackson must march
troops from his lines back five miles to New Orleans, cross them by the
ferry, and march them down the other shore. Such a movement required
a whole day, and divided the army in a manner hazarding the safety of
both wings.
Practically the west bank was undefended when Jackson, January 7, first
heard that the British were about to occupy it. Commodore Patterson had
mounted there, as has been told, a number of heavy guns in battery, but
these guns were not in position to cover their own bank against attack
from below. Major Latour was engaged with negroes in laying out lines
of defence, but nothing was completed. In an advanced position, about
a mile below the line of Jackson’s works, a bastion had been raised
close to the river, and near it a small redan, or salient, had been
constructed. This work, which was untenable in case of attack in flank
or rear, was occupied by four hundred and fifty Louisiana militia,
commanded by General David Morgan. During the afternoon of January 7,
after the British plan of attack was suspected, General Morgan caused
three guns--one twelve-pounder and two six-pounders--to be mounted on
his line. Late the same evening General Jackson ordered four hundred
men of the Kentucky division to New Orleans, where they were to obtain
muskets, then to cross the river, and march down the opposite shore
to reinforce Morgan. The Kentuckians obeyed their orders, but they
found only about seventy muskets at New Orleans; and not more than two
hundred and fifty armed men, weary with marching and faint from want
of food, reached Morgan’s quarters at four o’clock on the morning of
January 8.[551] Adair, who should have known the number best, declared
that only one hundred and seventy men were then in the ranks.[552] They
were sent a mile farther and stationed as an advanced line, with one
hundred Louisiana militia.
Thus seven or eight hundred tired, ill-armed, and unprotected militia,
divided in two bodies a mile apart, waited on the west bank to be
attacked by a British column which was then in the act of crossing
the river. Their defeat was almost certain. A thousand British troops
could easily drive them away, capture all the batteries on the west
bank, destroy the “Louisiana” as they had destroyed the “Carolina,”
thus turning all Jackson’s lines, and probably rendering necessary
the evacuation of New Orleans. For this work Pakenham detached the
Eighty-fifth regiment, about three hundred strong, the Fifth West
India, two hundred seamen and two hundred marines,--about twelve
hundred men in all,[553]--under command of Colonel Thornton, who had
led the light brigade at Bladensburg and across Lake Borgne to the
Mississippi. The movement was ordered for the night of January 7, and
was to be made in boats already collected in the Villeré canal.
With some hesitation[554] Pakenham decided to make a simultaneous
attack on Jackson. The arrangements for this assault were simple.
The usual store of fascines and ladders was provided. Six of the
eighteen-pound guns were once more mounted in battery about eight
hundred yards from the American line, to cover the attack. The
army, after detaching Thornton’s corps, was organized in three
divisions,--one, under Major-General Gibbs, to attack Jackson’s left;
another, under Major-General Keane, to attack along the river-side; a
third, the reserve, to be commanded by Major-General Lambert.
“The principal attack was to be made by Major-General Gibbs,” said the
British official report.[555] The force assigned to Gibbs consisted
of the Fourth, Twenty-first, and Forty-fourth regiments, with three
companies of the Ninety-fifth,--about two thousand two hundred
rank-and-file.[556] The force assigned to Keane consisted of “the
Ninety-third, two companies of the Ninety-fifth, and two companies of
the Fusileers and Forty-third,”[557]--apparently about twelve hundred
rank-and-file. “The first brigade, consisting of the Fusileers and
Forty-third, formed the reserve” under Major-General Keane, apparently
also twelve hundred strong. Adding two hundred artillerists and five
hundred black troops of the First West India regiment, employed as
skirmishers along the edge of the swamp, the whole body of troops
engaged on the east bank in the assault, according to the official
report and returns of wounded,[558] numbered about five thousand three
hundred rank-and-file, consisting of the Fourth, Seventh (Fusileers),
Twenty-first, Forty-third, Forty-fourth, Ninety-third, and Ninety-fifth
regiments, of whom twenty-two hundred were to attack on the right,
twelve hundred on the left, and twelve hundred were to remain in
reserve.
Thus of the whole British force, some eight thousand rank-and-file,
fifty-three hundred were to assault Jackson’s line; twelve hundred were
to cross the river and assault Morgan; eight hundred and fifty men were
detailed for various duties; and the seamen, except two hundred with
Colonel Thornton, must have been in the boats.
To meet this assault, Jackson held an overwhelming force, in which his
mere numbers were the smallest element. According to a detailed account
given by Jackson two years afterward, his left wing, near the swamp,
was held by Coffee’s brigade of eight hundred and four men; his centre,
by Carroll’s brigade of fourteen hundred and fourteen men; his right,
near the river, by thirteen hundred and twenty-seven men, including all
the regulars; while Adair’s Kentucky brigade, numbering five hundred
and twenty-five men, were in reserve.[559] Adair claimed that the
Kentuckians numbered fully one thousand. The dispute mattered little,
for barely one third of the entire force, whatever it was, discharged a
gun.
Besides three thousand or thirty-five hundred men on the parapets
and a thousand in reserve, Jackson had twelve pieces of artillery
distributed along the line, covering every portion of the plain. The
earth-wall behind which his men rested was in every part sufficiently
high to require scaling, and the mud was so slippery as to afford
little footing.[560] Patterson’s battery on the opposite shore
increased in force till it contained three twenty-four-pounders and
six twelve-pounders,[561] covered the levee by which the British left
must advance. The “Louisiana” took no part in the action, her men being
engaged in working the guns on shore; but without the “Louisiana’s”
broadside, Jackson had more than twenty cannon in position. Such a
force was sufficient to repel ten thousand men if the attack were made
in open day.
Pakenham, aware of the probable consequences of attacking by daylight,
arranged for moving before dawn; but his plan required a simultaneous
advance on both banks of the river, and such a combination was liable
to many accidents. According to the journal of Major Forrest, the
British Assistant-Quartermaster-General,[562] forty-seven boats were
brought up the bayou on the evening of January 7:
“As soon as it was dark, the boats commenced to be crossed
over into the river. A dam erected below the sternmost boat
had raised the water about two feet. Still there was a very
considerable fall from the river; and through which, for an
extent of two hundred and fifty yards, the boats were dragged
with incredible labor by the seamen. It required the whole
night to effect this, and the day had dawned before the first
detachment of Colonel Thornton’s corps (about six hundred men)
had embarked; and they just reached the opposite bank when the
main attack commenced on the enemy’s line.”
At six o’clock in broad dawn the columns of Gibbs and Keane moved
forward toward Jackson’s works, which were lined with American troops
waiting for the expected attack. Gibbs’s column came first under
fire, advancing near the swamp in close ranks of about sixty men in
front.[563] Three of the American batteries opened upon them. Coming
within one hundred and fifty yards of the American line, the British
column obliqued to the left to avoid the fire of the battery directly
in face. As they came within musketry range the men faltered and
halted, beginning a confused musketry fire. A few platoons advanced to
the edge of the ditch, and then broke. Their officers tried in vain
to rally them for another advance. Major-General Gibbs was mortally
wounded, according to the official report, “within twenty yards of the
glacis.”[564] Pakenham himself rode forward to rally Gibbs’s column,
and was instantly struck by a grape-shot and killed, nearly three
hundred yards from the American line.[565] “As I advanced with the
reserve,” said Lambert’s report, “at about two hundred and fifty yards
from the line, I had the mortification to observe the whole falling
back upon me in the greatest confusion.”
Keane’s column on the left moved along the road and between the river
and the levee. Pressing rapidly forward, greatly annoyed by Patterson’s
battery on the west bank, the head of this column reached the American
line, and stormed an unfinished redoubt outside the main work at the
edge of the river. The concentrated fire of the whole American right
almost immediately drove the column back in disorder; the men who
reached the redoubt were killed; Major-General Keane was severely
wounded and carried off the field, while the casualties among officers
of a lower grade were excessive. The Ninety-third regiment in Keane’s
brigade lost its lieutenant-colonel and two captains killed, and
four more captains severely wounded; three hundred and forty-eight
rank-and-file were wounded, ninety-nine were reported missing, and
fifty-eight killed. These losses amounted to five hundred and five in
seven hundred and seventy-five rank-and-file.[566]
Lambert’s report continued:[567]--
“In this situation, finding that no impression had been made;
that though many men had reached the ditch, they were either
drowned or obliged to surrender, and that it was impossible to
restore order in the regiments where they were,--I placed the
reserve in position until I could obtain such information as to
determine me how to act to the best of my judgment, and whether
or not I should resume the attack; and if so, I felt it could be
done only by the reserve.”
Just as the main attack ended, Colonel Thornton with his six hundred
rank-and-file, having landed on the west bank, advanced against
Morgan’s line, routed it, turned the redoubt, and advanced on
Patterson’s heavy battery beyond. Patterson unable to use his guns had
no choice but to spike his pieces and retreat. Thornton passed up the
river a mile beyond Jackson’s line,[568] and needed only a field-piece
and some hot shot to burn the “Louisiana” and march opposite New
Orleans.
From the eastern shore Jackson watched the progress of Thornton with
alarm. His official report of January 9 gave an idea of his emotions.
“Simultaneously with his advance on my lines,” Jackson said,
“the enemy had thrown over in his boats a considerable force
to the other side of the river. These having landed were hardy
enough to advance against the works of General Morgan; and
what is strange and difficult to account for, at the very
moment when their entire discomfiture was looked for with a
confidence approaching to certainty, the Kentucky reinforcements
ingloriously fled, drawing after them by their example the
remainder of the forces, and thus yielding to the enemy that
most formidable position. The batteries which had rendered
me for many days the most important service, though bravely
defended, were of course now abandoned, not however until the
guns had been spiked. This unfortunate rout had totally changed
the aspect of affairs. The enemy now occupied a position from
which they might annoy us without hazard, and by means of which
they might have been enabled to defeat in a great measure the
effect of our success on this side the river.”
John Adair, who was then in command of the Kentucky brigade, General
Thomas being unwell, took great offence at Jackson’s account of the
battle on the west bank. “The detachment on the other side of the
river,” he reported to Governor Shelby,[569] “were obliged to retire
before a superior force. They have been calumniated by those who
ought to have fought with them, but did not.” The tone of Jackson’s
report, and his language afterward, showed a willingness to load the
Kentucky troops on the west bank with the responsibility for a military
oversight with which they had nothing to do; but the oversight was not
the less serious, whoever was responsible for it. The Kentucky and
Louisiana troops did not easily yield. The British returns of killed
and wounded showed that Thornton’s column suffered a considerable
loss. Thornton himself was wounded; his regiment, the Eighty-fifth,
numbering two hundred and ninetyeight rank-and file, reported a loss
of forty-three men killed, wounded, and missing, besides their colonel.
Of one hundred sailors employed in the attack[570] twenty were killed
or wounded, besides Captain Money of the royal navy, “who, I am sorry
to say, was severely wounded,” said Thornton. The Americans made as
good a resistance as could have been expected, and had they resisted
longer they would merely have been captured when the next detachment
of Thornton’s column came up. The chief blame for the disaster did not
rest on them.
Jackson was helpless to interpose. As he and his men, lining the river
bank, watched the progress of Thornton’s column on the opposite shore,
Jackson could do nothing; but he ordered his men “that they should take
off their hats, and give our troops on the right bank three cheers.”
Adair, who inclined to a severe judgment of Jackson’s generalship, told
the story more picturesquely:[571]--
“I was standing by him when he gave his order, and with a smile,
not of approbation, observed I was afraid they could not hear
us. The distance from us to them, on a straight line, was upward
of one mile and a half; there was a thick fog, and I confess I
could not see the troops of either army. All I could discover
was the blaze from the guns; and seeing that continue to
progress up the river was the only knowledge we had that our men
were retreating.”
Jackson then ordered General Humbert, a French officer acting as
a volunteer, to take four hundred men and cross the river at New
Orleans to repulse the enemy, cost what it might;[572] but had the
enemy pressed his advantage, no force at Jackson’s command could have
stopped their advance, without causing the sacrifice of Jackson’s
lines. Fortunately the only remaining British general, Lambert, was not
disposed to make another effort. The eight regiments of regular troops
which made the bulk of Pakenham’s army had suffered severely in the
assault. One of these regiments, the Eighty-fifth, was with Thornton
on the west shore. Two, the Seventh and Forty-third, had been in the
reserve, and except two companies had never approached the works within
musket-shot, yet had lost fifty-two killed, and about one hundred
wounded and missing, in an aggregate of less than eighteen hundred.
The five remaining regiments--the Fourth, Twenty-first, Forty-fourth,
Ninety-third, and Ninety-fifth--were nearly destroyed. They went into
battle probably about three thousand strong:[573] they lost seventeen
hundred and fifty men killed, wounded, and missing. The total British
loss was two thousand and thirty-six.[574] The American loss was
seventy-one. Even on the west bank the American loss was much less than
that of the British.
The loss of three major-generals was almost as serious as the loss of
one third of the regular Infantry. Lambert, the fourth major-general,
weighed down by responsibility and defeat, had no wish but to escape.
He recalled Thornton’s corps the same evening from its position on the
opposite bank, and the next day, January 9, began preparations for his
difficult and hazardous retreat.[575]
Pakenham’s assault on Jackson’s lines at New Orleans, January 8,
repeated the assault made by Drummond, August 15, at Fort Erie.
According to the British account of that battle, Drummond’s engaged
force numbered twenty-one hundred and forty men; the reserve, about one
thousand.[576] Drummond’s direct attack, being made by night, was more
successful than Pakenham’s; his troops approached nearer and penetrated
farther than those of Gibbs and Keane; but the consequences were the
same. Of three thousand men, Drummond lost nine hundred and five. Of
six thousand, engaged in the double action of Jan. 8, 1815, Pakenham
lost two thousand and thirty-six. In each case the officers commanding
the assaulting columns were killed or wounded, and the repulse was
complete.
After the battle General Lambert’s position was critical. His
withdrawal of Thornton’s corps from the west bank betrayed his
intention of retiring, and his line of retreat was exposed to attack
from the bayou which headed near Jackson’s camp. Fortunately for him,
Jackson was contented with checking his advance.
“Whether, after the severe loss he has sustained,” wrote
Jackson, five days after the battle,[577] “he is preparing to
return to his shipping, or to make still mightier efforts to
attain his first object, I do not pretend to determine. It
becomes me to act as though the latter were his intention.”
If Jackson’s inaction allowed Lambert to escape, it was likely to
hazard a renewal of the attack from some other quarter; but the
armies remained for ten days in their old positions without further
hostilities, except from artillery fire, until on the night of January
18, after making careful preparations, the whole British force silently
withdrew to fortified positions at the mouth of the bayou, disappearing
as suddenly and mysteriously as it came, and leaving behind it
only eight or, according to the American report, fourteen[578] of
the guns which had covered the river and held the “Louisiana” at a
distance.[579] At the mouth of the bayou the army remained until
January 27, when it was re-embarked in the ships off Chandeleur’s
Island.
[Illustration:
MOBILE POINT
FROM ORIGINAL BY
TH. CAMPBELL, LIEUT. ROYAL STAFF CORPS.
_British Archives._]
On the day of the battle of January 8, a British squadron appeared
in the river below Fort St. Philip. Two bomb-vessels, under the
protection of a sloop, a brig, and a schooner, bombarded the fort
without effect until January 18, when they withdrew at the same time
with the army above.
Notwithstanding the disastrous failure of the campaign before New
Orleans, the British expedition, as it lay off Chandeleur Island
February 1, still possessed nearly as much strength as when it appeared
there December 11. Reinforced by a thousand fresh soldiers, Lambert
determined to attack Mobile. “It was decided,” reported Lambert,[580]
“that a force should be sent against Fort Bowyer, situated on the
eastern point of the entrance of the bay, and from every information
that could be obtained it was considered that a brigade would be
sufficient for this object, with a respectable force of artillery.”
At daylight on the morning of February 8 a whole brigade and a heavy
battering-train were disembarked in the rear of Fort Bowyer.
Jackson’s determination to defend Mobile had already deprived him of
the use of more than half the regular troops assigned to his military
district, who remained inactive at Mobile during the months of December
and January. They were commanded by General Winchester, whose record
as a military officer was not reassuring. Although Fort Bowyer was
known to be untenable against attack by land, Jackson not only retained
Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence there, but increased his force until he
had three hundred and sixty men in his command,--equal to the average
strength of an entire regiment, or half the force of regulars which
Jackson commanded at New Orleans. This garrison was only large enough
to attract, not to repel, an enemy. The obvious criticism on such a
course was afterward made by Armstrong:[581]--
“After the arrival of the British armament the garrison of Fort
Bowyer was not only continued but increased, though from its
locality wholly unable to aid in any important purpose of the
campaign. Nor was this the whole extent of the evil, for by the
disposition made of this gallant corps it was not only subjected
to present inaction, but ultimately ... to the perils of a siege
and the humiliation of a surrender.”
Colonel Lawrence had no choice but to capitulate, which he did February
11. He had not even the opportunity to resist, for the British made
regular approaches, and could not be prevented from capturing the place
without the necessity of assault. Jackson reported to the Secretary of
War[582] that this event was one which he “little expected to happen
but after the most gallant resistance; that it should have taken place
without even a fire from the enemy’s batteries is as astonishing as it
is mortifying.” In truth, the military arrangements, not Lawrence’s
defence, were responsible for the result; and Jackson had reason to
fear that a greater disaster was at hand, for unless General Winchester
should promptly evacuate Mobile, the disaster of the River Raisin was
likely to be repeated on a larger scale.
END OF VOL. II.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Proclamation of Admiral Cochrane, April 25, 1814; Niles, vi. 182.
[2] Pickering to John Lowell, Nov. 7, 1814; New England Federalism, p.
404.
[3] Pickering to George Logan, July 4, 1813; New England Federalism, p.
391.
[4] Thoughts in Answer to a Question respecting the Division of the
States; by a Massachusetts Farmer.
[5] The Palladium, Feb. 1, 1814.
[6] Pickering to Putnam, Feb. 4, 1814; New England Federalism, p. 391.
[7] Report of Committee; Niles, vi. 4–8.
[8] Federalist, no. 46.
[9] Dexter to the Electors of Massachusetts, Feb. 14, 1814; Niles, vi.
9.
[10] National Intelligencer, May 5, 1814.
[11] Shelby to J. J. Crittenden, April 8, 1814; Life of Crittenden, p.
31.
[12] Letter of Jan. 15, 1814; “National Intelligencer,” Jan. 27, 1814.
[13] The Palladium, July 15, 1814.
[14] The Palladium, July 15, 1814.
[15] Road to Ruin, No. 5; The Examiner, Jan. 8, 1814.
[16] Niles, vi. 94.
[17] Scott’s Autobiography, pp. 114, 118, 121.
[18] Return, etc.; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 521.
[19] Advertisement of Gilbert & Deane, Boston “Chronicle,” April 14,
1814.
[20] Secretary Campbell to Madison, May 4, 1814; Madison MSS., State
Department Archives.
[21] Act of March 4, 1814; Annals, 1813–1814, p. 2795.
[22] Defence of the Clergy; Concord, July, 1814.
[23] Armstrong to Wilkinson, Jan. 20, 1814; Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i 625.
[24] Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 64.
[25] Wilkinson to Dearborn, March 27, 1814; Dearborn MSS.
[26] Wilkinson to Dearborn, March 27, 1814; Dearborn MSS.
[27] State of the Left Division, Jan. 22, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
Freer Papers, 1814, p. 17.
[28] James, ii. 82, 83.
[29] Armstrong to Brown, Feb. 28, 1814; Notices, ii. 213.
[30] Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 66.
[31] Lossing, p. 793.
[32] Brown to Armstrong, March 24, 1814; Lossing, p. 793.
[33] James, ii. 100.
[34] Report of Sir James Yeo; James, ii. 428–430.
[35] M. T. Woolsey to Chauncey, June 1, 1814; Niles, vi. 266.
[36] Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 216.
[37] Prevost to Bathurst, Aug. 27, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[38] Torrens to Prevost, July 5, 1805; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[39] Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 74, 82.
[40] Armstrong to Izard, June 11, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 33.
[41] Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 82.
[42] Colonel McKay to Colonel McDouall, July 27, 1814; Report on
Canadian Archives by Douglas Brymner, 1887, p. cv.
[43] Madison to the Secretary of Navy, May 4, 1814; Madison’s Works,
iii. 396.
[44] Madison’s Cabinet Memorandum, June 7, 1814; Madison’s Works, iii.
403.
[45] Armstrong to Brown, June 10, 1814; MSS. War Department Records.
[46] Brown to Chauncey, June 21, 1814; enclosed in Brown to Armstrong,
June 22, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[47] Monthly Returns, etc., MSS. War Department Archives.
[48] Stone’s Life of Red Jacket, p. 328.
[49] Weekly Distribution Return, June 22, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives,
Freer Papers, 1814, p. 53.
[50] James, ii. 117.
[51] Brown’s Report of July 7, 1814; Official Letters, p. 368.
[52] Stone’s Life of Red Jacket, p. 352.
[53] Riall’s Report of July 6, 1814; James, ii. 431.
[54] Scott’s Autobiography, p. 128.
[55] Riall’s Report, July 6, 1814; James, ii. 432.
[56] Scott’s Autobiography, p. 130. Jesup’s Narrative; Ingersoll, ii.
90, 91. Mansfield’s Scott, pp. 105–110.
[57] James, ii. 432.
[58] Mansfield’s Scott, p. 112.
[59] James ii. 434.
[60] Riall to Drummond, July 8, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[61] Brown to Chauncey, July 13, 1814; Niles, vii. 38.
[62] James, ii. 132.
[63] Ripley’s “Facts relative to the Campaign on the Niagara,” p. 8.
Jesup’s Narrative; Ingersoll, ii. 106.
[64] Ripley’s “Facts,” 1815.
[65] Harvey to Lieut.-Colonel Tucker, July 23, 1814; MSS. Canadian
Archives.
[66] James, ii. 142.
[67] James, ii. 139.
[68] James, ii. 144.
[69] Drummond’s Report of July 27, 1814; James, ii. 436.
[70] James, ii. 143.
[71] Letter of Major Leavenworth, Jan. 15, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p.
21.
[72] Letter of Major Leavenworth, Jan. 15, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” pp.
18–27.
[73] Strength of the Army, July 25, 1814; Ripley’s “Facts,” Appendix.
[74] Mansfield’s Scott, p. 129; _note 2_.
[75] Miller’s Letter in the Boston “Patriot,” Sept. 4, 1814; Ripley’s
“Facts,” p. 27.
[76] Lossing, p. 820, _note_.
[77] Evidence of Captain McDonald; Ripley’s “Facts,” p. 12.
[78] Drummond’s Report, July 27, 1814; James, ii. 437.
[79] Evidence of Captain McDonald; Ripley’s “Facts,” p. 13.
[80] Drummond’s Report; James, ii. 143.
[81] James, ii. 145.
[82] Evidence of Captain McDonald; Ripley’s “Facts,” p. 16.
[83] Cf. Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i. 712.
[84] Letter of Major Leavenworth, Jan. 15, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p.
23. Jesup’s Narrative; Ingersoll, ii. 107.
[85] Letter of Major Leavenworth, Jan. 15, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p.
23. Jesup’s Narrative; Ingersoll, ii. 107.
[86] Ripley’s “Facts,” Appendix.
[87] Letter of Captain Clarke, March 15, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p. 30.
Letter of Adjutant Livingston, March 6, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p. 31.
[88] Letter of Major Leavenworth, Jan. 15, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p.
25.
[89] Colonel Hindman’s statement; Ripley’s “Facts,” p. 43.
[90] James, ii. 144–145.
[91] James, ii. 146.
[92] Letter in Halifax newspaper; Niles, vii. 410.
[93] Strength of the American army; Ripley’s “Facts,” Appendix.
[94] Drummond’s Report of July 27, 1814; James, ii. 438.
[95] Letter of Capt. McDonald, March 20, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p. 29.
[96] Brown’s Report of the battle of July 25; Niles, vi. 433.
[97] Letter of Major Leavenworth, Jan. 15, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p.
27.
[98] Letter of Major Leavenworth, Jan. 15, 1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p.
27.
[99] Ripley’s “Facts.” Cf. Brown’s Narrative; Ingersoll, ii. 105.
[100] Letter of Major Leavenworth, Jan. 15, 1815, Ripley’s “Facts,” p.
383.
[101] Report of Aug. 7, 1814; Niles, vi. 434. Brown to Dallas, May,
1815; Ripley’s “Facts,” p. 46.
[102] Brown’s Diary; Ingersoll’s History, ii. 105.
[103] James, ii. 161, 162.
[104] Drummond to Prevost, Aug. 4, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[105] James, ii. 162, 163.
[106] Ingersoll’s History, ii. 145. Cf. Report of Major Morgan, Aug. 5,
1814; Niles, vi. 437.
[107] Drummond to Prevost, Aug. 4, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[108] Charges of Lieutenant-Colonel Trimble against General Gaines;
Niles, xi. 219.
[109] Report of General Gaines, August, 1814; Niles, vii. 19.
[110] James, ii. 170, 171.
[111] Drummond’s orders of Aug. 14, 1814; Niles, vii. 21. James, ii.
169–171.
[112] James, ii. 178.
[113] Instructions to Lieutenant-Colonel Fischer, Aug. 14, 1814; MSS.
Canadian Archives.
[114] Lieutenant-General Drummond’s Order for attack [Secret]; Niles,
vii. 21.
[115] Gaines’s Report of Aug. 23, 1814; Niles, vii. 19. Ripley’s Report
of Aug. 17, 1814; Niles, vii. Supplement, p. 139.
[116] Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Fischer, Aug. 15, 1814; James, ii.
453.
[117] Charges of Major Trimble; Niles, xi. 219.
[118] British Return; James, ii. 454. American Return; Niles, vii. 21.
[119] Drummond to Prevost, Aug. 16, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[120] James, ii. 814. Drummond to Prevost, Aug. 16, 1814; MSS. Canadian
Archives.
[121] Chauncey to Brown, Aug. 10, 1814; Niles, vii. 38.
[122] James, ii. 230.
[123] Ripley to Armstrong, Sept. 4, 1814; MSS. War Department.
[124] Lossing, p. 837.
[125] Brown to Izard, Sept. 10, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 86.
[126] Drummond to Prevost, Sept. 8, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[127] Drummond to Prevost, Sept. 11, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[128] Drummond to Prevost, Sept. 14, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[129] Jesup’s Narrative; Lossing, p. 837, _note_; Ingersoll, ii.
151.
[130] Porter’s Report of Sept. 22, 1814, and Brown’s Report of Sept.
29, 1814; Niles, vii. 100, 101.
[131] Brown’s Report of Sept. 29, 1814; Niles, vii. 100.
[132] Brown’s Report of Oct. 1, 1814; Official Letters, p. 445.
[133] James, ii. 232, 233. Report of Major-General DeWatteville, Sept.
19, 1814; James, ii. 469.
[134] James, ii. 234.
[135] James, ii. 236.
[136] Drummond to Prevost, Sept. 21, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives.
[137] Chauncey to Jones, Aug. 10, 1814; Niles, vii. 37.
[138] Izard to Armstrong, July 19, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 54.
[139] Armstrong to Izard, July 2, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 51.
[140] W. H. Robinson to Sir G. Prevost, Aug. 27, 1814; MSS. British
Archives.
[141] Prevost to Bathurst, Oct. 18, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[142] Izard’s Correspondence, p. 57.
[143] Prevost to Bathurst, Aug. 27, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[144] Lieut.-Colonel Pilkington to Lieut.-General Sherbrooke, July 12,
1814; James, ii. 472.
[145] Sherbrooke to Bathurst, Sept. 18, 1814; James, ii. 475.
[146] Sherbrooke to Bathurst, Sept. 18, 1814; James, ii. 475.
[147] Morris to Jones, Sept. 20, 1814; Niles, vii. 63.
[148] James, ii. 482.
[149] Lossing, p. 903, _note_.
[150] Armstrong to Izard, May 25 and June 30, 1814; Izard’s
Correspondence, pp. 23, 48.
[151] Izard to Armstrong, July 12, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 52.
[152] Izard to Armstrong, July 19, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 54.
[153] Armstrong to Izard, July 27, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 64.
[154] Izard to Armstrong, Aug. 11, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence.
[155] Armstrong to Izard, July 27, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 64.
[156] Armstrong to Izard, Aug. 12, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 69.
[157] Izard’s Correspondence, p. 144.
[158] Macomb to Armstrong, Sept. 15, 1814; Niles, vii. 60.
[159] Armstrong to Izard, Aug. 2, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 61.
[160] See ante, vol. vii. p. 173.
[161] Proposed Distribution of the Forces in the Left Division; MSS.
Canadian Archives, Freer Papers, 1812–1813, p. 107.
[162] James, ii. 206.
[163] Comparative Force of the Flotillas; MSS. Canadian Archives.
Prevost’s Report; James, ii. 462; Christie, ii. 211, _note_.
[164] Christie, ii. 221, 222.
[165] Montreal Herald, Sept. 24, 1814.
[166] Report of Sept. 15, 1814; Niles, vii. 50.
[167] Christie, ii. 212.
[168] Christie, ii. 212.
[169] London Naval Chronicle, xxxii. 292. Niles, viii.; Supplement, p.
173.
[170] James, p. 413.
[171] Cooper’s Naval History, ii. 429.
[172] Macdonough’s Report of Sept. 12, 1814; Niles, vii. 42. Cooper’s
Naval History, chap. xxviii. James’s Naval Occurrences, pp. 414, 415.
Roosevelt’s Naval War of 1812, pp. 378–384.
[173] Cooper’s Naval History, ii. 427, 431.
[174] Cooper’s Naval History, ii. 432.
[175] Prevost’s Report of Sept. 11, 1814; James, ii. 461.
[176] Izard to Monroe, Oct. 7, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 97.
[177] Report of Captain Pring, Sept. 12, 1814; James, Appendix no. 90.
[178] Report of Commodore Macdonough, Sept. 13, 1814; Niles, vii. 41.
[179] Howard Douglas’s Naval Gunnery, p. 115. (Fourth edition).
[180] Christie, ii. 215, 216.
[181] Annual Register for 1814, p. 332.
[182] Prevost to Bathurst, Oct. 6, 1814; Christie, ii. 395.
[183] Wellington to Sir George Murray, Dec. 22, 1814; Despatches, xii.
224.
[184] Stanhope’s Conversations, p. 252.
[185] Brown to Izard, Sept. 10, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 86.
[186] Notices, ii. 102–107.
[187] Izard to Monroe, Oct. 16, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 100.
[188] Izard to Monroe, Oct. 16, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 103.
[189] Izard to Monroe, Oct. 23, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 105.
Cf. Brown to Armstrong, Nov. 28, 1814; Kosciusko Armstrong’s “Notice of
J. Q. Adams’s Eulogy on James Monroe,” p. 29.
[190] Izard to Monroe, Nov. 20, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 119.
[191] Izard to Monroe, Dec. 18, 1814; Izard’s Correspondence, p. 130.
[192] James, ii. 241.
[193] James, ii. 393.
[194] MSS. Canadian Archives. Freer Papers, 1814, p. 31.
[195] Lieutenant Edwards’s Report of July 25, 1814; State Papers,
Military Affairs, i. 545.
[196] Winder to Armstrong, July 9, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 543.
[197] Letter of Secretary Armstrong, Oct. 17, 1814; State Papers,
Military Affairs, i. 538.
[198] Letter of J. P. Van Ness, Nov. 23, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 581.
[199] Madison to Armstrong, May 20, 1814; Madison’s Works, iii. 399.
[200] Madison’s Works, iii. 408, 409.
[201] Notices, ii. 140.
[202] Madison’s Works, iii. 422, 426.
[203] Winder to Armstrong, July 27, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 546.
[204] Winder’s letter of Sept. 26, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 552.
[205] Bathurst to Ross, 1814; War Office Despatches, MSS. British
Archives.
[206] Cochrane to Prevost, July 22, 1814; MSS. Canadian Archives. C.
684, p. 221.
[207] Orders of Vice-Admiral Cochrane, July 18, 1814; MSS. Canadian
Archives, C. 684, p. 204.
[208] James, ii. 275, 276; Cockburn to Cochrane, Aug. 27, 1814; Ross to
Bathurst, Aug. 30, 1814; James, ii. 492–499.
[209] Cochrane to Monroe, Aug. 18, 1814; State Papers, Foreign Affairs,
iii. 693.
[210] Gleig’s Washington and New Orleans, p. 51. James, ii. 283.
[211] Map of General Ross’s Route; Wilkinson’s Memoirs.
[212] Ross’s Report of Aug. 30, 1814; Niles, vii. 277.
[213] Monroe to Madison, Aug. 20 and 21, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 537. Winder’s Narrative, Ibid. 554.
[214] State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 547, 549.
[215] Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 554.
General W. Smith’s Statement; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 563.
[216] Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 554.
General W. Smith’s Statement, i. 563.
[217] Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 555.
[218] State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 538.
[219] Serurier to Talleyrand, Aug. 22, 1814; Archives des Aff. Étr. MSS.
[220] Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, pp. 555, 556.
[221] Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, pp. 556, 557.
[222] Statement of John Law; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 585.
[223] Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 557.
[224] State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 548.
[225] Captain Burch’s Statement, Oct. 12, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 574.
[226] Rush’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 542.
Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 557.
[227] Review of J. Q. Adams by Kosciusko Armstrong, p. 7.
[228] William Pinkney’s Statement; State Papers, Military Affairs, i.
572.
[229] Secretary Jones’s Report, Oct. 3, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 576.
[230] Armstrong’s Letter; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 540.
Ingersoll’s History, ii. 173.
[231] Stansbury’s Report; Monroe’s Letter; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 561, 536.
[232] Gleig’s Subaltern, p. 68.
[233] Letter of William Simmons; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 596.
[234] Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 557.
Stansbury’s Report; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 562.
[235] Van Ness’s Letter; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 580.
[236] Barney’s Report of Aug. 29, 1814; State Papers, Military Affairs,
i. 579.
[237] Colonel Beall’s Statement; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 571.
[238] James, ii. 499.
[239] Cockburn to Cochrane, Aug. 27, 1814; James, ii. 493.
[240] Campaigns, p. 67; Cf. Barney to the National Intelligencer.
Niles, vii. Supplement, p. 159.
[241] Benjamin Ogle Tayloe. In Memoriam, p. 154.
[242] Serurier to Talleyrand, Aug. 22 and 27, 1814. Archives des Aff.
Étr. MSS.
[243] Reports of Ross and Cockburn; James, ii. 499.
[244] Ingersoll’s History, ii. 189.
[245] Ross’s Report of Aug. 30, 1814; James, ii. 496.
[246] Monroe’s Letter, Nov. 13, 1814; State Papers, Military Affairs,
i. 537.
[247] Mrs. Madison to her sister, Aug. 24, 1814; Memoirs and Letters of
Dolly Madison, p. 108.
[248] Memorandum of Colonel Monroe; MSS. State Department Archives.
[249] Ingersoll’s History, ii. 208; Memoirs and Letters of Dolly
Madison, p. 116.
[250] Report of General Stansbury, Nov. 15, 1814; State Papers,
Military Affairs, i. 560.
[251] Notices, ii. 148.
[252] Statement of John Law, Nov. 10, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, p. 585.
[253] Wilkinson’s Memoirs, i. 786.
[254] Winder’s Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, p. 558.
[255] Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 231; Appendix no. 28. Winder’s
Narrative; State Papers, Military Affairs, p. 559.
[256] Notices, vol. ii. chap. v.
[257] Madison’s Memorandum, Aug. 24, 1814; Works, iii. 422.
[258] Stansbury’s Report; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 562.
[259] Madison to Monroe, Aug. 26, ten o’clock P.M.; Ingraham’s
“Sketch of the Events,” p. 61.
[260] Note of Aug. 27, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[261] Report of Captain Gordon, Sept. 9, 1814; James, Appendix no. 84.
[262] Monroe’s Memorandum; Gilman’s Monroe, p. 119.
[263] Williams; Capture of Washington, p. 105.
[264] McKenney’s Memoirs, p. 47.
[265] Madison’s Memorandum; Works, iii. 424. Letter of Jacob Barker,
Feb. 8, 1843; Life of Barker, pp. 114, 115.
[266] Armstrong’s Letter of Sept. 13, 1814; Niles, vii. 6.
[267] McKenney’s Memoirs, p. 44.
[268] Monroe to Madison, Sept. 25, 1814; Madison MSS. State Department
Archives.
[269] Report of Captain Gordon, Sept. 9, 1814; James, ii. Appendix no.
84.
[270] Chamier’s “Life of a Sailor.” Preface to Second Edition, chap.
xviii.
[271] Life of a Sailor, Bentley, 1850, p. 180.
[272] James, ii. 276.
[273] Report of Acting-Commodore Crease, Sept. 1, 1814; Niles, vii.,
Supplement, p. 150.
[274] Chamier’s “Life of a Sailor,” pp. 183–191.
[275] Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Armistead, Sept. 24, 1814; Niles,
vii. 40.
[276] Army Returns; MSS. Adjutant-General’s office, War Department.
[277] Cochrane’s Report of Sept. 17, 1814; James, ii. Appendix no. 73.
[278] James, ii. 313, 314.
[279] Gleig’s Campaigns, p. 116.
[280] Report of General Stricker, Sept. 15, 1814; Niles, vii. 26.
[281] Drawing of line of battle; Lossing, p. 953. Report of Colonel
Brooke, Sept. 17, 1814; James, ii. Appendix no. 71.
[282] James, ii. 315.
[283] Gleig’s Campaigns, p. 102.
[284] Brooke’s Report of Sept. 17, 1814; James, ii. Appendix no. 71, p.
508.
[285] Armistead’s Report, Sept. 24, 1814; Niles, vii. 40.
[286] Cochrane’s Report of Sept. 17, 1814; James, ii. 514.
[287] Subaltern, chap. xiii.
[288] James, p. 305.
[289] Report of Captain Hillyar; James, ii. Appendix no. 71. Naval
History, vi. 153.
[290] Commander R. W. Wales to Sir Alexander Cochrane, May 8, 1814;
MSS. British Archives.
[291] Commander R. W. Wales to Sir Alexander Cochrane, May 8, 1814;
MSS. British Archives.
[292] James’s Naval History, vi. 160.
[293] James, pp. 342–347.
[294] Report of Captain Warrington, Oct. 30, 1814; Niles, vii. 155.
[295] Blakeley’s Report of July 8, 1814; Niles, vii. 114.
[296] Report of Captain James Arbuthnot, Sept. 1, 1814; MSS. British
Archives.
[297] Report of Lieutenant George Lloyd of the “Castilian,” Sept. 2,
1814; MSS. British Archives.
[298] Lieutenant Lloyd to Vice-Admiral Sawyer, Sept 2, 1814; MSS.
British Archives.
[299] Blakeley’s Report, Sept. 11, 1814; Niles, vii. 191.
[300] Letter from the Purser, July 29, 1814; Niles, vi. 391.
[301] James, p. 361.
[302] Morning Chronicle, Sept. 6, 1814.
[303] Niles, vii. 174.
[304] Croker to the Mayor of Bristol, Sept. 16, 1814; Niles, viii.
Supplement, p. 186.
[305] Letter of Consul Dabney, Oct. 5, 1814; Niles, vii. 253.
[306] Robert Lloyd to Rear-Admiral Brown, Sept. 28, 1814; MSS. British
Archives.
[307] Letter of Captain Reid, Oct. 4, 1814; Niles, vii. Supplement, p.
167.
[308] Niles, vii. 255. James’s Naval History, vi. 509. Cf. Letter from
Fayal, Oct. 15, 1814. Cobbett’s “Weekly Register,” reprinted in Niles,
vii. Supplement, p. 171.
[309] Niles, vii. 255.
[310] Dabney’s Letter; Niles, vii. 254. Reid’s Letter of Oct. 4, 1814;
State Papers, Naval Affairs, p. 495.
[311] Report of Captain Lloyd, Oct. 4, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[312] Captain Hope to Rear Admiral Hotham, Oct. 11, 1814; MSS. British
Archives.
[313] James’s Naval History, vi. 527.
[314] Report of Secretary Campbell, Sept. 26, 1814; State Papers,
Finance, ii. 840.
[315] Niles, vii.; Supplement, p. 176.
[316] Niles, vii.; Supplement, p. 176.
[317] Armstrong to Eppes, Feb. 10, 1814; Niles, vi. 94. See
_ante_, vol. vii. p. 381.
[318] Report; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 535.
[319] Return of Enlistments, Nov. 2, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 521. Letter of Assistant Inspector-General, Oct. 22, 1814;
State Papers, Military Affairs, p. 518.
[320] The Inspector-General’s Letter of Nov. 2, 1814; State Papers,
Military Affairs, p. 520.
[321] Report of the Paymaster, Oct. 26, 1814; State Papers, Military
Affairs, p. 519.
[322] Monroe to Giles, Oct. 26, 1814; State Papers, Military Affairs,
p. 518.
[323] Brown to Armstrong, July [August] 19, 1814; MSS. War Department
Archives.
[324] Niles, vii.; Supplement, p. 188.
[325] Strong to Eustis, Aug. 5, 1812; State Papers, Military Affairs,
i. 610.
[326] General Orders, Sept. 6, 1814; State Papers, Military Affairs, p.
613.
[327] Strong to the Secretary of War, Sept. 7, 1814; State Papers,
Military Affairs, p. 613.
[328] Monroe to Strong, Sept. 17, 1814; State Papers, Military Affairs,
p. 614.
[329] Cushing to the Secretary of War, Sept. 12, 1814; State Papers,
Military Affairs, p. 620.
[330] Macomb to Chittenden, Sept. 4, 1814; Niles, vii. 102.
[331] Chittenden to General Newell, Sept. 5, 1814; Niles, vii. 103.
[332] Message of Oct. 5, 1814; Niles, vii. 113.
[333] Quincy’s Life of Quincy, p. 357.
[334] Pickering to Strong, Oct. 12, 1814; New England Federalism, p.
394.
[335] Report of Oct. 8, 1814; Niles, vii. 149.
[336] Cabot to Pickering, Feb. 14, 1804; Lodge’s Cabot, p. 341. See
_ante_, vol. ii. p. 166.
[337] Senate Report of Oct. 18, 1814; Niles, vii. 151.
[338] Niles, vii. 154.
[339] Niles, vii. 165.
[340] Report; Niles, vii. 164.
[341] Niles, vii. 181.
[342] Niles, ix. 281.
[343] Niles, iv. 268.
[344] Randolph’s Letter to Lloyd, Dec. 15, 1814; Niles, vii. 258.
[345] Kennedy’s Life of Wirt, i. 339.
[346] Jefferson to Madison, Sept. 24, 1814; Works, vi. 385.
[347] Jefferson to Monroe, Jan. 1, 1815; Works, vi. 407.
[348] Jefferson to Short, Nov. 28, 1814; Works, vi. 398.
[349] Seybert, p. 436; Pitkin, p. 415.
[350] Statement, etc.; State Papers, Finance, iii. 44–48.
[351] State Papers; Finance, ii. 846, 847.
[352] Letter of Paymaster Brent, Oct. 26, 1814; State papers, Military
Affairs, i. 519.
[353] Niles’s Register, Nov. 26, 1814.
[354] Ingersoll’s History, ii. 253.
[355] Ingersoll’s History, ii. 254, 257.
[356] Dallas to William Lowndes, Nov. 27, 1814; State Papers, Finance,
ii. 872.
[357] Dallas to the Commissioner of Loans at Boston, Nov. 9, 1814;
Niles, vii. 270.
[358] Jefferson to Madison, Oct. 15, 1814; Works, vi. 391.
[359] Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Sept. 10, 1814; Works, vi. 375.
[360] Report of Oct. 10, 1814; State Papers, Finance, ii. 854.
[361] Jefferson to Monroe, Oct. 16, 1814; Works, vi. 394.
[362] Dallas to Eppes, Oct. 17, 1814; State Papers, Finance, ii. 866.
[363] Dallas to Lowndes, Nov. 27, 1814; State Papers, ii. 872.
[364] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, p. 606.
[365] Dallas to Eppes, Dec. 2, 1814; State Papers, Finance, ii. 877.
[366] Jefferson to Short, Nov. 28. 1814; Works, vi. 398.
[367] Statement, etc.; State Papers, Finance, ii. 861.
[368] Annals of Congress, 1815–1816, p. 1435.
[369] Letter to E. Webster, Jan. 30, 1814; Webster’s Correspondence, i.
250, 251.
[370] Review of Dallas’s Report; Boston “Advertiser,” Dec. 1815.
[371] Niles, vii.; Supplement, p. 176.
[372] Dallas to Eppes, Jan. 17, 1817; State Papers, Finance, ii. 885.
[373] Life of George Ticknor, i. 31.
[374] Jefferson to Monroe, Oct. 16, 1814; Works, vi. 394.
[375] Monroe to Giles, Oct. 17, 1814; State Papers, Military Affairs,
i. 514.
[376] Explanatory Observations, State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 515.
[377] Monroe to Giles, Oct. 26, 1814; State Papers, Military Affairs,
i. 518.
[378] Annals of Congress, Feb. 6, 1815, p. 1130.
[379] A Bill, etc.; Niles, vii. 181.
[380] Message of Governor Strong, with documents, Jan. 18, 1815.
[381] Debate of Dec. 2, 1814; Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 705.
[382] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 974.
[383] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 891, 895.
[384] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 734.
[385] Speech of C. J. Ingersoll, Dec. 9, 1814; Annals, 1814–1815, iii.
809.
[386] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 907.
[387] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 790, 791.
[388] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 829.
[389] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 833.
[390] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 848.
[391] Resolution; Niles, vii.; Supplement, p. 107.
[392] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 808.
[393] Curtis’s Life of Webster, i. 139.
[394] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, iii. 869.
[395] Annals of Congress. 1814–1815, iii. 882.
[396] Curtis’s Life of Webster, i. 139 _note_.
[397] Act of Dec. 10, 1814; Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, p. 1837.
[398] Annals of Congress, 1814–1815, pp. 1125–1130.
[399] Madison’s Debates, ii. 712.
[400] Message of Sept. 30, 1814; Niles, vii. 97.
[401] Monroe’s Memoir; Deposition of Tench Ringgold, Feb. 14, 1826, pp.
13, 58.
[402] Eulogy of James Monroe by J. Q. Adams, p. 75.
[403] H. G. Otis’s Letters in Defence of the Hartford Convention, 1824,
pp. 38, 39.
[404] Lodge’s Cabot, p. 561.
[405] Pickering to John Lowell, Jan. 24, 1815; New England Federalism,
p. 425.
[406] Debate of Jan. 29, 1816; Annals of Congress, 1815–1816, p. 795.
[407] Letter of Invitation, Oct. 17, 1814; Niles, vii. 179
[408] Lodge’s Memoir of Strong; Proceedings of Massachusetts Historical
Society, 1879.
[409] Lodge’s Memoir of Strong; Proceedings of Massachusetts Historical
Society, 1879.
[410] Pickering to Strong, Oct. 29, 1814; Lodge’s Cabot, p. 535.
[411] Boston Centinel, Oct. 19, 1814.
[412] Otis’s Letters in Defence of the Hartford Convention, p. 10.
[413] Pickering to Lowell, Nov. 7, 1814; Lodge’s Cabot, p. 541.
[414] Lowell to Pickering, Dec. 3, 1814; Lodge’s Cabot, p. 545.
[415] Lodge’s Cabot, p. 541.
[416] Lodge’s Cabot, p. 519.
[417] Lodge’s Cabot, p. 548.
[418] Ingersoll’s History, ii. 232–238; MSS. War Department Archives.
[419] Morris to Pickering, Dec. 22, 1814; Morris’s Works, iii. 324.
[420] Boston Gazette, Jan. 5, 1815.
[421] Boston Centinel, Jan. 14, 1815.
[422] Pickering to Lowell, Jan. 23, 1815; Lodge’s Cabot, p. 561.
[423] Report of Committee, Jan. 24, 1815; Niles, vii. 372.
[424] Niles, vii.; Supplement, p. 97.
[425] Boston Centinel, Feb. 4, 1815.
[426] Sumner’s East Boston, p. 739.
[427] Speech to the Connecticut Legislature; Niles, vii.; Supplement,
p. 95.
[428] Lodge’s Cabot, pp. 504–526; Lossing, p. 1015; Goodrich’s
Recollections, ii. pp. 9–61.
[429] Lodge’s Cabot, p. 518.
[430] Pickering to Lowell, Jan. 23, 1815; Lodge’s Cabot, p. 561.
[431] Niles, vii.; Supplement, pp. 49–53.
[432] Palladium, Jan. 24, 1815. Cf. Pickering to Lowell, Jan. 24, 1815;
New England Federalism, p. 426.
[433] Mason to Nicholas, Nov. 26, 1814; Nicholas MSS.
[434] Life of Ticknor, i. 12.
[435] Jefferson to Gallatin; Works, vi. 498.
[436] Life of Ticknor, i. 37.
[437] The Federal Republican, Jan. 14 and 16, 1815.
[438] Bathurst to Ross, July 30, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[439] Cochrane to Croker, June 20, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[440] Croker to Cochrane, Aug. 10, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[441] Bathurst to Ross, Aug. 10, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[442] Bathurst to Ross, Sept. 6, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[443] Bathurst to Ross, Sept. 28, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[444] Bathurst to Ross, Sept. 29, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[445] Bathurst to Ross, Sept. 29, 1814; MSS. British Archives.
[446] Eaton’s Jackson, p. 210.
[447] Eaton’s Jackson, p. 212.
[448] Jackson to Armstrong, Aug. 10, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[449] Sir Alexander Cochrane to Croker, July 23, 1814; MSS. British
Archives.
[450] Jackson to Governor Blount, Aug. 27, 1814; Niles, vii. 47.
[451] Military and Naval Letters, p. 407.
[452] Latour, p. 14.
[453] National Intelligencer, Oct. 22, 1814.
[454] Latour, Appendix, p. ix.
[455] Anonymous Letter of Aug. 8, 1814; Latour, Appendix, p. v.
[456] Latour, p. 34.
[457] James, ii. 344.
[458] General Orders of Sept. 17, 1814; Niles, vii. 95.
[459] Latour, p. 33.
[460] Latour, Appendix, p. xxix.
[461] Latour, Appendix, p. xxxi.
[462] Jackson to Monroe, Oct. 10, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[463] Jackson to Monroe, Oct. 14, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[464] Eaton, pp. 239, 240.
[465] Monroe to Jackson, Sept. 25, 1814; MSS. War Department Records.
Monroe MSS.
[466] Monroe to Jackson, Oct. 21, 1814; MSS. War Department Records.
[467] Monroe to Hugh L. White, Feb. 9, 1827; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[468] Eaton, p. 243.
[469] Jackson to Governor Blount, Nov. 14, 1814; Official Letters, p.
451.
[470] Jackson to Monroe, Oct. 28, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[471] Jackson to Monroe, Oct. 31, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[472] Jackson to Monroe, Nov. 14, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[473] Jackson to Monroe, Nov. 14, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[474] Armstrong’s Notices, ii. 176.
[475] Eaton, p. 257.
[476] Subaltern, p. 101.
[477] Monroe to Jackson, Dec. 7, 1814; MSS. War Department Records.
[478] Monroe to Jackson, Dec. 10, 1814; MSS. War Department Records.
[479] Eaton, pp. 261, 282.
[480] Jackson to Monroe, Nov. 20, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[481] Jackson to Monroe, Dec. 2, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[482] Eaton, p. 290.
[483] Subaltern, p. 193.
[484] Eaton, p. 286; Latour, p. 53.
[485] General Orders of Aug. 6, 1814; Latour, Appendix, p. xvii.
[486] Notices, ii 177.
[487] Jackson to Monroe, Dec. 12, 1814; MSS. War Department Archives.
[488] Eaton, p. 272.
[489] Eaton, p. 282.
[490] Sir Alexander Cochrane to J. W. Croker, Dec. 16, 1814; Latour,
Appendix, p. cxxxviii.
[491] James, ii. 349.
[492] Report of Captain Lockyer, Dec. 18, 1814; James, ii. 523.
[493] Letter of Dec. 16, 1814; Niles, vii. 316.
[494] General Orders, Dec. 16, 1814; Niles, vii. 316.
[495] General Orders, Dec. 16, 1814; Niles, vii. 317.
[496] Eaton, p. 290.
[497] Report of Major-General Keane, Dec. 26, 1814; James, ii. 529.
[498] Admiral Cochrane to Mr. Croker, Jan. 18, 1815; James, ii. 550.
[499] Latour, p. 77; Jackson’s Report of Dec. 27, 1814; Latour,
Appendix, p. xlv.
[500] James, ii. 355.
[501] Subaltern, p. 212.
[502] Latour, p. 66.
[503] Eaton, p. 293, _note_.
[504] Latour, p. 53.
[505] Subaltern, p. 215 (American edition, 1833).
[506] See Memoir of Latour in Cullum’s Campaigns of the War of
1812–1815, p. 309.
[507] Latour, p. 88.
[508] Latour, p. 105.
[509] Latour, p. 105.
[510] Captain Henley’s Letter of Dec. 28, 1814; Niles, vii. 387.
[511] Latour, p. 104. Parton, i. 617. Commodore Patterson’s Report of
Dec. 28, 1814; Latour, Appendix, p. xliii.
[512] Patterson’s Report of Dec. 28, 1814; Latour, Appendix, p. xliii.
[513] James, ii. 355.
[514] Latour’s Plan.
[515] James, ii. 355. Keane’s Report of Dec. 26, 1814; James, ii. 529.
[516] Latour, pp. 96, 97. Parton, ii. 90.
[517] Report of Dec. 26, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. xliv.
[518] Report of Dec. 27, 1814; Niles, vii. 357.
[519] Latour’s Plan of the Battle of December 23; Peddie’s Sketch.
[520] James, ii. 362. Keane’s Report; James, ii. 530.
[521] Parton, ii. 100.
[522] Patterson to Secretary of Navy, Dec. 28, 1814; Latour, Appendix,
p. xliii.
[523] Report of Major-General Keane, Dec. 26, 1814; James, ii. 529.
[524] Keane’s Report of December 26, 1814; James, ii. 531.
[525] Subaltern, pp. 228, 229.
[526] James, ii. 363.
[527] Latour, p. 121.
[528] Patterson’s Report of Jan. 2, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. 1, no.
xxviii.
[529] Gleig’s Campaigns, p. 165.
[530] Report of J. D. Henley, Dec. 28, 1814; Niles, vii. 387.
[531] Journal of Major Forrest; Latour, Appendix, p. cxlvii.
[532] Subaltern, p. 235.
[533] Cochrane’s Report of Jan. 18, 1815; James, ii. 552.
[534] Latour, pp. 147, 148.
[535] Patterson’s Report of Jan. 2, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. 1, no.
xxviii.
[536] Campaigns, p. 166.
[537] Henley’s Report of December 28; Niles, vii. 387.
[538] Latour, p. 136. Patterson’s Report of Jan. 2, 1815; Latour,
Appendix, p. 1, no. xxviii.
[539] Journal of Major Forrest, Assistant-Quartermaster-General; MSS.
British Archives. Latour, Appendix, p. cxlvii.
[540] Subaltern, p. 249. Gleig’s Campaigns, p. 173.
[541] Patterson’s Report of Jan. 2, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. 1, no.
xxviii.
[542] James, ii. 369.
[543] Subaltern, p. 249 (American edition, 1833).
[544] Life of Codrington, i. 334.
[545] Latour, pp. 133, 134.
[546] Return of Casualties; James, ii. 543.
[547] Journal; Latour, Appendix, p. cxlvii.
[548] Life of Codrington, i. 336. Lambert’s Report of Jan. 28, 1815;
Latour, Appendix, p. clxvi.
[549] Adair’s letters of Oct. 21, 1817; Letters of Adair and Jackson,
Lexington, 1817.
[550] Eaton, p. 359.
[551] Latour, p. 170.
[552] Adair to Jackson, March 20, 1815; Letters of Adair and Jackson,
1817; Latour, Appendix, p. cxxxii.
[553] Journal of Major Forrest, Assistant-Quartermaster-General; MSS.
British Archives. Lambert’s Report, Jan. 10, 1815; James, ii. 543.
[554] Life of Codrington, i. 336.
[555] Lambert’s Report of Jan. 10, 1815; Niles, viii. 177.
[556] James, ii. 373.
[557] Lambert’s Report; Niles, viii. 177.
[558] Niles, viii. 180.
[559] Jackson to Adair, July 23, 1817.
[560] Latour, pp. 147–152.
[561] Patterson’s Report of Jan. 13, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. ix.
[562] Journal of Major Forrest, Assistant-Quartermaster-General; MSS.
British Archives.
[563] Latour, p. 154.
[564] Lambert’s Report of Jan. 10, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. cxlix.
[565] Latour’s Plan.
[566] Return of Casualties; James, ii. 554.
[567] James, ii. 373.
[568] Latour’s Plan.
[569] Letter of Jan. 13, 1815; Niles, vii. 389.
[570] Thornton’s Report of Jan. 8, 1815; James, ii. 547.
[571] Letters of General Adair and General Jackson, 1817.
[572] Latour, p. 175.
[573] James, ii. 373.
[574] James, ii. 382.
[575] Report of General Lambert, Jan. 28, 1815; James, ii. 565.
[576] James, ii. 179.
[577] Jackson to the Secretary of War, Jan. 13, 1815; Niles, vii. 374.
[578] Latour, p. 185.
[579] Lambert’s Report of Jan. 28, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. clxvi.
[580] Report of Feb. 14, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. clxxii.
[581] Notices, ii. 176.
[582] Jackson’s Report of Feb. 24, 1815; Latour, Appendix, p. xcvii.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the
original
3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.