1839-1843.
On the 10th of May, 1839, appeared Cooper's "History of the United
States Navy." The work was one which he had long contemplated writing.
As far back as 1825 there were newspaper reports that he had the
undertaking in mind. He himself, in his parting speech at the dinner
given him in May, 1826, just before his departure for Europe, had
publicly announced his determination of devoting himself to this subject
during his absence abroad. "Encouraged by your kindness," he said, "I
will take this opportunity of recording the deeds and sufferings of a
class of men to which this nation owes a debt of lasting gratitude--a
class of men among whom, I am always ready to declare, not only the
earliest, but many of the happiest days of my youth have been passed."
The necessity of providing for his family and of paying off debts
incurred by others, but for which he was responsible, had prevented the
immediate carrying out of this resolution. But it had always been in his
thoughts. The delay in the preparation probably added to the value of
the history; but its reception would unquestionably have been far
different had it been brought out in the height of his popularity.
It was a work which for many reasons it was a hard task to make
accurate, and a still harder one to make interesting. With slight
exceptions the history could be little more than a record of (p. 201)
detached combats; and a string of episodes, no matter how brilliant, can
never have the attraction which belongs to unity and grandeur of
movement. These last can alone characterize the operations of great
fleets.
Still, for the writing of this history Cooper was peculiarly fitted. He
had belonged to the navy in his early life. He had never ceased to feel
the deepest interest in its reputation and prosperity. He had
contributed to the "Naval Magazine," a periodical published during 1836
and 1837, a series of papers connected with the improvement of its
condition. He was, moreover, on terms of intimacy with many of the
officers who had won for it distinction; and through them he had access
to sources of information that could not be gained from written
authorities. He had, besides, the characteristic of loving truth for its
own sake, and the disposition to endure any amount of drudgery and
encounter any sort of toil in order to secure it. To this were added the
special qualifications of the historical eye, which enabled him to seize
the important facts in an infinite mass of detail, and the power of
describing vividly what he saw clearly. Under such circumstances it was
reasonable to expect that his work would satisfy all fair-thinking men.
It is, perhaps, correct to say that it did so. But it also gave rise to
a controversy which stretched over a longer period and surpassed, in the
bitter feelings it aroused, any of the wars in which the navy itself had
ever been engaged.
There were special difficulties to be encountered with readers on both
sides of the ocean. On the one hand, Englishmen had usually forgotten to
remember that during the war of 1812 there was any naval combat of
importance fought except between the Shannon and the Chesapeake; (p. 202)
and even at this day it would be difficult to find in an English writer
any account of the naval operations of that war in which that particular
engagement does not play the principal part. If any other was forced
upon their attention it had become an article of their creed that an
American frigate was little else than a line-of-battle ship disguised.
Moreover, the effective force of the American vessel was, according to
their theory, made up of deserters from the British service. These two
explanations of any failure were often combined. It is in this way
Captain Brenton, one of their naval historians, calmly shows how it was
that the Constitution happened to capture the Guerrière. "We may justly
say," he concludes his account, "it was a large British frigate taking a
small one." On her part America was not to be outdone in her estimate of
national prowess. It had become matter of firm faith with the
inhabitants of the United States that their side had suffered no losses
worth mentioning during the war of 1812; that the American vessel had
been invariably successful, whenever there was any approach to equality
of force; and that in every case it was the superior seamanship,
courage, and skill of their officers and men that had decided the result
in their favor, and not superiority in weight of metal.
Neither of these beliefs was of a kind likely to influence Cooper. He
had got to that point of feeling in which he looked upon the public
opinion of both England and America with a good deal of contempt. It was
not to pamper the vanity or flatter the prejudices of either that he
wrote, but to state the truth. For this he neglected nothing that lay in
his power. He studied public documents of every kind, official (p. 203)
reports, all the printed and manuscript material to which he could get
access. From officers of the navy who had shared in the actions
described he gathered much information which they alone were able to
communicate. In one sense he was fully satisfied with what he had done.
He did not pretend that in a work which involved the examination and
sifting of an almost infinite number of details he had not made some
errors. It was only that he had made none intentionally, and that he had
put forth his most strenuous exertions to have what he wrote entirely
free from mistake. Nor is it possible for any unprejudiced mind to read
the history now and not feel the truth of the assertion. Its accuracy
and honesty have sometimes been flippantly questioned, but usually by
men who have not spent as many days in the study of the subject as
Cooper did months. During his lifetime imputations were made in a few
cases upon the correctness of his statements. They met then, however, so
speedy and effectual a refutation that it was not thought worth while to
repeat the criticisms until he was in his grave. Cooper might be wrong
in his conclusions; but it was rarely safe to quarrel with his facts.
There is more, however, in this history than freedom from intentional
perversion of the truth. There are throughout the whole of it the
calmness, the judicial spirit, the absence of partisanship which may not
of themselves add anything to the interest of the narrative, but are
worth everything for the impression of truthfulness it makes.
Impartiality is a quality, however, little apt to be commended where our
own feelings and interests are concerned. Still, the general fairness of
the work was admitted in England, with the qualification, of (p. 204)
course that a perfectly trustworthy history could not come from this
side of the water. A few malignant attacks were made upon it. One of
these, which appeared in the "United Service Journal" for November and
December, 1839, is of the nature of a prolonged roar rather than a
criticism; but it is worth noticing for the incidental evidence it
furnishes of the intense rancor felt towards Cooper by many in England
on account of his strictures upon that country in the two volumes
devoted to it in his "Gleanings in Europe." The writer made the then
usual profession of faith, that the work referred to had been completely
crushed by the "Quarterly;" moreover, that the novelist had been
convicted by it of the blackest ingratitude for traducing the nation
which, we learn from this notice, had fostered his talents for romance.
No critic of Cooper, either in Europe or in this country, it is to be
remarked here, ever seemed willing to concede that the author had any
hand in gaining his own reputation. In America the newspapers constantly
assured him that it was due entirely to them. Great Britain assumed that
it was to her generous appreciation alone that he was known in either
hemisphere. The European main-land was not behind the island in this
feeling. "Undoubtedly," wrote Balzac, "Cooper's renown is not due to his
countrymen nor to the English: he owes it mainly to the ardent
appreciation of France." This sentiment of the novelist's obligation to
Great Britain was uppermost in the heart of the reviewer in the "United
Service Journal." An uneasy impression, however, weighed upon his mind
lest Cooper, who had now suffered annihilation several times without
injury, might have survived the particular one inflicted by the (p. 205)
"Quarterly." He honestly confessed, therefore, that he had waited
some months before criticising the "Naval History," so that he might not
look at it with a jaundiced or malignant eye in consequence of his
recollections of the previous work on England.
It is not worth while to take any further notice of this article, in
which wretched criticism was put into still poorer English. But there
was one of these reviews to which Cooper felt it incumbent on him to
reply. This appeared in the "Edinburgh" for April, 1840. It was
studiously fair in tone. It commended the American author's work in many
respects. While doing so, however, it attacked him for having made no
use of the "Naval History of Great Britain" by William James, a history
which it spoke of in a gushing way as approaching "as nearly to
perfection in its own line as any historical work perhaps ever did." It
also labored heavily to break the force of some of Cooper's statements
by charging him with making assertions without evidence or against
evidence. James was a veterinary surgeon who had come to this country
before the war of 1812 to practice his profession. After the breaking
out of hostilities he left it, or rather, as he says, "escaped from it,
before being taken prisoner into the interior"--whatever that may mean.
In the early part of "the steelyard and arithmetical war," as Cooper
phrased it, which has raged with extreme violence ever since the peace
of Ghent, James bore a gallant and conspicuous part. He published a
pamphlet on the subject, which, in 1817, came out expanded into a
volume. In it he showed conclusively that his countrymen had been
utterly wrong in supposing that they had met with any naval reverses
during the war of 1812. The falsity of this assumption he (p. 206)
satisfactorily established by explaining that the Americans were the
most inveterate liars upon the face of the earth. By their deceptive and
fraudulent accounts they had beguiled the English, a self-distrustful
and self-depreciating people, into believing that they had been
defeated, where they had really been victorious. Heroes, indeed, can be
overcome by sufficient odds; and James was always prepared with ample
explanations to account for failure in special cases. He also convicted
the officers of the American navy not merely of lying in their official
reports--which was a duty expected of them both by government and
people--but of cowardice in action, of misconduct in their operations,
and of brutality toward enemies whom the chance of war threw into their
power. A work like this not merely filled a gap in historical
literature, it supplied a national want. It was accordingly received
with such favor that its author went on to produce a history of the
British navy from 1793 to the accession of George IV. In this he
embodied his previous narrative; and a grateful people has never ceased
to cherish a work which showed it that it had succeeded where previously
it had been laboring under the impression that it had failed.
For James and his history Cooper had unbounded contempt. This
horse-doctor, as he termed him, he looked upon as being as well fitted
to describe a naval engagement as the proverbial horse-marine would be
to take part in one. Besides being incapable, he regarded him as
eminently dishonest; as vaunting impartiality while elevating
discreditable and improbable hearsay into positive assertion, and
fortifying his falsehoods by a pretentious parade of figures and
official documents. It is hardly going too far to say that, in (p. 207)
Cooper's opinion, the remarks of James on American affairs combined all
possible forms of misstatement from undesigned misrepresentation to
deliberate falsehood. There may be difference of opinion on this point;
on another there can be none. The period covered by the British writer
is on the whole the most glorious in the long and brilliant naval
history of the greatest maritime power the world has ever known. Never
was there a greater contrast between the spirit with which things were
done and the spirit with which they were told. In no other history known
to man does tediousness assume proportions more appalling, do figures
seem more juiceless, do the stories of heroic achievement furnish less
inspiration than in this of James. If it be true, as some modern writers
say, that history to be of value must be void of interest, it may be
conceded that this particular work is entitled to that praise of
perfection accorded it by the Edinburgh Reviewer.
The judgment that held up such a history as a model was not likely to
impress a man, who was still under the sway of the old-fashioned notion,
that there was no absolutely necessary connection between dullness and
accuracy. To this particular criticism Cooper replied in the "Democratic
Review" for May and June, 1842. In the first article he exposed the
ignorance and dishonesty of James. In the second he devoted himself to
the assertions of the "Edinburgh." The game was hardly worth the candle.
His arguments could not reach the men who alone needed to know them. In
international quarrels of any kind there are few who read both sides.
The feeling exists that it is not safe to contaminate the purity of
one's faith in his country by the doubts that might arise from (p. 208)
merely fancying that an opponent has reasons for his course worth
considering. So it was in this case. Few people in the United States saw
the "Edinburgh Review," none believed what it said. In England fewer
knew even of the existence of the "Democratic Review."
The controversy that arose in this country was on an entirely different
ground. It was one that could hardly have been foreseen. The personal
hostility which Cooper had succeeded in drawing upon himself was never
so conspicuously shown as in the treatment which his "Naval History"
underwent. At first, indeed, it was received with general favor, though
by many it was thought to give too much credit to the English. In a
short time, however, attacks were made upon it so virulent, so
causeless, and withal so simultaneous, that the mere fact would of
itself afford reason for the suspicion that they were concerted. This
was practically the case. A certain amount of preliminary detail will
make the circumstances clear. The controversy was entirely about the
account of a particular action in the war of 1812, and a work containing
over fifty chapters was absolutely condemned as partisan and worthless
for what was found on a few pages of one chapter.
The battle of Lake Erie was fought and won by Commodore Perry on the
10th of September, 1813. It presented the peculiarity that the Lawrence,
the flagship of the victorious squadron, had struck to the enemy in the
course of the engagement. There was a feeling prevalent among many at
the time that Elliott, the second in rank, had not been cordial in his
support of his commander, and had left him to bear for a long while the
brunt of the fight without hastening in his vessel, the Niagara, (p. 209)
to his help. This was, in particular, the general belief among those on
board the Lawrence. Perry did not sanction this view at first. Urged by
good-nature, according to the theory of his friends, he praised
Elliott's conduct in his official report. He went even farther in a
letter of the 19th of September. This was in reply to a note from
Elliott stating that rumors were current that the Lawrence had been
sacrificed because of the lack of proper exertion on the part of the
second in command. "I am indignant," wrote Perry, "that any report
should be in circulation prejudicial to your character as respects the
action of the 10th instant. It affords me pleasure that I have it in my
power to assure you that the conduct of yourself, officers, and crew was
such as to merit my warmest approbation. And I consider the circumstance
of your volunteering and bringing the smaller vessels up to close action
as contributing largely to our victory." Such was the situation at the
time. A few years later, however, a bitter quarrel sprang up between
Perry and Elliott, which apparently owed a good deal of its rancor to
the exertions of good-natured friends of both in communicating to each
remarks made, or supposed to be made, by the other. An envenomed
correspondence took place in 1818. It led to Elliott's challenging
Perry, and Perry preferring charges against Elliott for his conduct at
the battle of Lake Erie. In the letter accompanying the charges he gave
as his reason for changing his opinion as to the behavior of his second
in command, that he had been put into possession of fresh facts. The
government took no action in the matter, and in the following year Perry
died. In 1834 Elliott became the mark of hostility of the Whig press on
account of his putting the figure of Andrew Jackson at the (p. 210)
figure-head of the Constitution, the war-ship of which he was in
command. The old scandal about his conduct at Erie was revived. Elliott
did more than defend himself. A life of him was published in 1835,
written by another, but from materials evidently that he himself had
furnished. It claimed that the success of the battle of Lake Erie was
mainly due to his efforts. It naturally produced a feeling of intense
bitterness among Perry's friends and relatives. This was the way matters
stood at the time that the "Naval History" was brought out.
Cooper entered upon the account of the battle of Lake Erie with the
common prejudice against Elliott. Nor were efforts lacking to keep it
alive and strengthen it, when it was reported in naval circles that he
had begun to be uncertain about the justice of his original impressions.
Captain Matthew Perry, the brother of the Commodore, forwarded him all
the sworn documentary evidence that made against Elliott. He neglected
to send any that was given in his favor. Cooper was not the man to be
satisfied with this way of writing history. As he examined the subject
more and more, he was struck by the conflicting character of the
testimony, and the doubt that overhung the whole question. He came
finally to the conclusion that it was not a matter he could settle, or,
perhaps, any one. He accordingly contented himself with giving as
accurate an account of the battle of Lake Erie as he could without
entering at all into the details of the controversy. He made not the
slightest effort to detract from the praise due to Perry, and, indeed,
paid the highest tribute to his skill and conduct. Nor did he give to
Elliott any prominence whatever.
He had committed, however, the unpardonable sin. He had refused (p. 211)
to attack Elliott. He had preferred to accept Perry's original account
of the battle, written within five days after it had taken place, to the
view he took of it not only five years later, but also after a bitter
personal quarrel had sprung up between him and his former second in
command. While Cooper had made no special mention of the latter, he had
spoken of him respectfully. There was a general feeling that Elliott
ought to have been attacked. He was a very unpopular man, and, perhaps,
deservedly so; while Perry was both a popular favorite and a popular
hero. The refusal of Cooper to join in the general denunciation brought
down upon him, not only those who honestly believed him in the wrong,
but the whole horde of his own personal enemies who knew little and
cared less about this particular subject. In the long list of
controversies which the student of literature is under the necessity of
examining, none seems so uncalled for and so discreditable to the
assailants as this. For it is to be borne in mind that the historian had
not made the slightest attempt to injure Perry in the popular
estimation, or to elevate the subordinate at the expense of the
commander. Yet assertions of this kind were constantly bandied about,
though it would not have taken five minutes reading of the work to have
shown their falsity. Cooper was frequently spoken of by the press as the
detractor of American fame and the slanderer of American character,
because he refused to say, on one-sided evidence, that an officer of the
United States navy had been willing to sacrifice his superior in a hotly
contested battle and imperil the result for the sake of ministering to
his own personal ambition, or of gratifying a feeling of personal (p. 212)
dislike and envy, of the existence of which at the time there was no proof.
Space here exists to notice only the elaborate attacks to which Cooper
himself felt constrained to reply. The first of these appeared in four
numbers of the "New York Commercial Advertiser" during June, 1839. The
articles were written by William A. Duer, who had lately been president
of Columbia College. They purported to be a review of the "Naval
History," but nothing whatever was said about that work beyond the few
pages in which the battle of Lake Erie is described. They were,
moreover, so personal in their nature and contained imputations so gross
on his character, that Cooper began a libel suit against the journal in
which they were published. This finally resulted in one of the most
extraordinary trials that has ever been recorded in merely literary
annals. The attack in the "Commercial Advertiser" was followed by a
similar one in the "North American Review." This was written, however,
with more decency, though it again devoted itself mainly to the battle
of Lake Erie. It was the work of Alexander Slidell Mackenzie, a naval
author, who by three books of travel had gained at the time some
literary notoriety. But the notoriety never rose to reputation; and the
history which preserves his name at all, preserves it in connection with
an event it were well for his memory to have eternally forgotten. It is
to be added that he was the brother-in-law of Captain Matthew Perry, and
that Duer was his uncle. Hardly had his broadside been delivered, when
another attack appeared. The victor of Lake Erie had come from Rhode
Island, and Rhode Island rushed to the fray, not to defend her son--for
he had not been attacked--but to build up his reputation by (p. 213)
ruining that of his enemy. Tristam Burges, when the biography of
Elliott, already referred to, had appeared, had delivered a lecture on
the battle of Lake Erie before the Rhode Island Historical Society. It
was not printed at the time; but no sooner was Cooper's work published
than, at the request of Perry's friends and relatives, it was brought
out with documents appended. The lecture reads very much like a stump
speech of the extreme florid type. It is needless to say that in it
Elliott got his full deserts for betraying his commander. It made no
direct reference to Cooper, but the whole object was to discredit the
account of the battle which he had given.
Even this was not all. Mackenzie prepared a life of Perry, which was
published early in 1841. In it he attacked Elliott with great
bitterness, and was careful to give in an appendix all the sworn
testimony on one side, and leave out all the sworn testimony on the
other. The biography met with general favor. It was styled a noble work,
and the courage manifested by the author in assailing an unpopular man
and celebrating a popular hero was, for some reason hard now to be
understood, highly commended on all sides. The intense partisanship of
the biography can be read on almost every page. But it was warmly
welcomed everywhere, for Elliott had few friends even in his own
profession. The "North American Review" for July, 1841, in an article
written by the late Admiral Charles H. Davis, congratulated the navy on
now having a work which gave a true and faithful report of the battle of
Lake Erie, and stigmatized Cooper's account as false in spirit,
statement, and comment.
This was, indeed, the general charge. For a while Cooper was (p. 214)
under as heavy a bombardment as Perry himself had been in his flagship.
That his feelings were outraged by the injustice of it there can be no
question, but it never daunted his spirit. Yet he took not the slightest
step without being sure of his ground. He went over the evidence again
and again. He talked with officers of the navy who held views opposed to
his own; though he said afterward he rarely found that they knew
anything about the matter beyond common report. With the exception of a
few newspaper articles, however, he published nothing directly in reply
until four years after his history was published. In the mean while he
pressed the suit against William L. Stone, the editor of the "Commercial
Advertiser." That paper at first took the prosecution in the jocular and
insolent way then common with the press. Under an announcement of "Stand
Clear," it informed its readers early in August, 1839, that "the
interesting Mr. J. Effingham Fenimore Cooper is to bring a libel suit
against us. None will approach it in interest, importance, or
amusement." The editor was telling more truth than he thought. No
action, however, was taken by Cooper for nearly a year to carry out his
expressed intention. But he could always be depended upon. His suits,
though sometimes long in coming, were sure to come at last. Great was
the surprise of the editor when, in May, 1840, a process was served upon
him for a libel printed eleven months before. He was indignant that the
prosecutor had waited so long. A demurrer was filed and argued in July,
1840, at the Utica term of the Supreme Court. The decision was against
the defendant. Things now began to look more serious; for while the
importance of the suit was increasing, its amusement was diminishing.
It, however, hung on in the courts for a year and a half longer. (p. 215)
The defendant was naturally unwilling to hasten a trial which was almost
certain to end in an adverse verdict. Negotiations between the parties
in the autumn of 1841 resulted in a novel agreement. Cooper did not care
for damages. It was not money he sought; it was to vindicate the truth
of his history and his character as an historian. When, therefore, his
adversary suggested that an ordinary jury of twelve men could not well
pass upon a question involving the value of conflicting evidence, and
minute technical detail, he seized upon the occasion to arrange that it
should be tried before a body of referees, consisting of three
distinguished lawyers. The proposal was accepted. Never was the eternal
question between author and reviewer settled in a more singular and a
more thorough way. For the referees were to decide, not merely upon
legal points, but upon moral ones. They were to decide whether the
author had written a truthful account of the battle of Lake Erie, and
whether he had written it in a spirit of truth. On the other hand, they
were to decide whether the reviewer had written matter libelous enough
to justify a verdict from a jury, and whether in the treatment of the
subject for which he criticised the history he had been just and
impartial. If the decision were in favor of the author the defendant was
not to pay more than two hundred and fifty dollars besides the costs. In
any case the beaten party was to publish the full text of the decision,
at his own expense, in the cities of New York, Albany, and Washington.
The referees agreed upon were Samuel Steevens, named by Cooper; Daniel
Lord, Jr., named by Stone; and Samuel A. Foot, chosen by mutual consent.
The attendance of many witnesses was rendered unnecessary by the (p. 216)
stipulation that a vast mass of documentary testimony in possession
of Cooper should be taken in evidence.
The referees met in the United States court room in New York city, on
the afternoon of Monday, May 16, 1842. A large crowd was in attendance.
Public interest had been aroused, not only by the question involved and
the novel character of the suit, but by the fact that the historian was
to assume the principal conduct of his own side. The trial lasted for
five days. After the opening speeches had been made, the taking of oral
testimony began. Among the witnesses for the defense were Sands,
Mackenzie, and Paulding, all officers of the navy. They were examined in
reference to Cooper's account of the battle of Lake Erie and the
diagrams by which he represented the positions of the vessels during the
engagement. Their views were in all respects opposed to the theory of
operations which he had assumed. After the taking of the oral testimony
was ended and certain legal questions had been argued, the summing up
was begun by William W. Campbell of Otsego, the leading lawyer for the
defense. His speech was exceedingly able and effective. Men who were
present at the proceedings asserted, when it was finished, that there
was no possible way in which its reasoning could be shaken, still less
overthrown. At eight o'clock on Thursday evening Cooper began summing up
for the prosecution, and continued until ten. On Friday he resumed his
argument at four in the afternoon, and six hours had passed before he
concluded. His conduct of the case from the beginning had excited
surprise and admiration. Friends and foes alike bore witness to the
signal ability he had displayed throughout; but his closing speech (p. 217)
made an especially profound impression. Its interest, its ingenuity, and
its effectiveness were conceded by the defendant himself. It was for a
long time after spoken of as one of the finest forensic displays that
had ever been witnessed at the New York bar. Among those present at the
trial was Henry T. Tuckerman, who has left us an account of the
circumstances and of the bearing of the man. "A more unpopular cause,"
he wrote, "never fell to the lot of a practiced advocate; for the hero
of Lake Erie was and had long been one of the most cherished of American
victors. We could not but admire the self-possession, coolness, and
vigor with which the author, on this occasion, played the lawyer. Almost
alone in his opinion,--the tide of public sentiment against his theory
of the battle, and the popular sympathy wholly with the received
traditions of that memorable day,--he stood collected, dignified,
uncompromising; examined witnesses, quoted authorities, argued nautical
and naval precedents with a force and a facility which would have done
credit to an experienced barrister. On the one hand, his speech was a
remarkable exhibition of self-esteem, and on the other, a most
interesting professional argument; for when he described the battle, and
illustrated his views by diagrams, it was like a chapter in one of his
own sea-stories, so minute, graphic, and spirited was the picture he
drew. The dogmatism was more than compensated for by the picturesqueness
of the scene; his self-complacency was exceeded by his wonderful
ability. He quoted Cooper's 'Naval History' as if it were 'Blackstone;'
he indulged in reminiscences; he made digressions and told anecdotes; he
spoke of the manoeuvres of the vessels, of the shifting of the wind, of
the course of the fight, like one whose life had been passed on (p. 218)
the quarter-deck. No greater evidence of self-reliance, of indifference
to the opinion of the world, and to that of his countrymen in
particular, of the rarest descriptive talent, of pertinacity, loyalty to
personal conviction, and a manly, firm, yet not unkindly spirit, could
be imagined than the position thus assumed, and the manner in which he
met the exigency. As we gazed and listened, we understood clearly why,
as a man, Cooper had been viewed from such extremes of prejudice and
partiality; we recognized at once the generosity and courage, and the
willfulness and pride of his character: but the effect was to inspire a
respect for the man, such as authors whose errors are moral weaknesses
never excite."
On the 16th of June the referees rendered their decision on the eight
points submitted to them for adjudication. In regard to five of these
they were all in full agreement; but in three instances one of the
referees dissented from certain portions of the report made by the other
two.
The first point was whether, according to the evidence and the rules of
the law the plaintiff would be entitled to the verdict of a jury in an
ordinary suit for libel. They agreed that he would, and accordingly
awarded the damages that had been fixed by the original stipulation.
The second point was whether in writing his account of the battle of
Lake Erie, Cooper had faithfully fulfilled his obligations as an
historian. The majority of the referees decided that he had so done. Mr.
Foot dissented to this extent, that Cooper had intended to do so, but
that from error of judgment or from some cause not impugning the (p. 219)
purity of his motives, he had failed in one specified point. This was
that the narrative gave the impression that Elliott's conduct in the
battle had met with universal approbation, which it had not. The
arbitrator added, however, that this was the only particular in which it
appeared to him that the historian had failed in fulfilling the high
trust he had taken upon himself.
The third point was whether the narrative of the battle of Lake Erie was
true or not in its essential facts, and if untrue, in what particulars.
The majority decided that it was true. Mr. Foot dissented on the same
point, to the same extent, and for the same reason, for which he had
dissented from the second.
The fourth point was whether the account of the battle was written in a
spirit of impartiality and justice. They all agreed that it was so
written.
The fifth point was whether the writer of the criticism, upon which the
suit was founded, had faithfully fulfilled the office of a reviewer. If
not they were to give the facts upon which their conclusion was based.
They unanimously agreed that the writer had not faithfully discharged
his obligations as a reviewer; that he had indulged in personal
imputations; that he was guilty of misquotations which materially
changed the meaning; that his statements were incorrect in several
particulars; and that his charge that Cooper had given to Elliott equal
credit with Perry in the conduct of the battle was untrue. This last
assertion, they add, was made after a careful examination by them of the
history itself.
The sixth point was whether the review was true or not in its essential
facts; and if untrue, in what particulars. They all agreed that (p. 220)
it was untrue, and gave the particulars.
The seventh point was whether the review was written in a spirit of
impartiality and justice. The majority decided that it was not so
written. Here again Mr. Foot made a partial dissent. He considered the
review to have been written under the influence of a wakeful
sensibility, inconsiderately and unnecessarily aroused in defense of the
reputation of a beloved and deceased friend.
The eighth point was to settle which of the two parties should be
required to publish the full text of the decision at his own expense in
newspapers published in New York, Washington, and Albany. The referees
agreed that this was to be done by the defendant.
Thus ended this suit. For Cooper the result was a great personal
triumph. He had had to contend with the prejudices of a nation. For
months and years he had been persistently assailed with all the weapons
that unscrupulous partisanship or unreasoning family affection could
wield. He had been compelled to identify his own cause with that of a
man who, in addition to unpopularity with members of his own profession,
had drawn upon himself the hostility of a political party. He had been
under the necessity of controverting, in some particulars, a generally
accepted belief. Against him had been arrayed two of the ablest lawyers
of the bar. Naval officers of reputation had on the witness stand
criticised his theory of the battle and contradicted his statements. He
had been assisted in the conduct of the case by his nephew; but outside
of this he had received help from no one. Sympathy with him, there was
little; desire for his success, there was less; and the referees (p. 221)
could hardly fail to feel to some extent the influence that pervaded
the whole country. In the face of all these odds he had fought the
battle and won it. He had wrung respect and admiration from a hostile
public sentiment which he had openly and contemptuously defied. Upon the
essential matters in dispute the verdict of three men, of highest rank
in their profession and skilled in the weighing of conflicting evidence,
had been entirely in his favor.
Cooper followed up his victory by a pamphlet which appeared in August,
1843, entitled, "The Battle of Lake Erie: or, Answers to Messrs. Burges,
Duer, and Mackenzie." In this he went fully over the ground. No reply
was made to it; there was in fact none to be made. The popular tradition
could best be maintained by silence. Silence at any rate during his
lifetime was preserved, and silence in cases where it would have been
creditable to have said something. It certainly affords justification
additional to that already given, for the contemptuous opinion expressed
by Cooper of the American press, that the newspapers which had been
loudest in the denunciation of his history, never so much as alluded to
the result of the trial brought to test authoritatively the fairness and
impartiality of the narrative for which he had been condemned.
After reading patiently all that has been written on both sides of this
question, it seems to me that not only was the verdict of the
arbitrators a just one, but that Cooper was right in the view he took.
Still, where evidence is conflicting there is ample room for difference
of opinion; and in regard to the conduct of Elliott at Lake Erie the
evidence is diametrically opposed. The only secure method, therefore, of
obtaining and maintaining a comfortable bigotry of belief on the (p. 222)
subject is to read carefully the testimony on one side and to despise
the other so thoroughly as to refrain from even looking at it. This was
then and has since been the course followed by the thick and thin
partisans of Perry. But whether the conclusion be right or not at which
Cooper arrived, there was never the slightest justification for the
gross abuse to which he was subjected. He had everything to gain by
falling in with the popular tradition and attacking Elliott. Nothing but
lofty integrity and love of truth could have made him take the course he
did. If a mistake at all, it was a mistake of judgment. But the charges
brought against him were based in most instances upon deliberate
misrepresentation of what he had said. This was especially true of the
criticisms of Duer and Mackenzie. The perversion of meaning of one of
his foot-notes is a striking instance of the unscrupulous nature of
these attacks. In this Cooper had spoken of the vulgar opinion which
celebrated as an act of special gallantry Perry's passing in an open
boat from one ship to another as being the very least of his merits;
that the same thing was done in the same engagement by others, including
Elliott; that there was personal risk everywhere; and that Perry's real
merit was his indomitable resolution not to be conquered, and the manner
in which he sought new modes of victory when old ones failed. If this be
depreciatory, it is depreciatory to say that greater honor is due to him
who manifests the skill and fertility of resource of a commander than to
him who exhibits the mere valor of a soldier. But in Duer's review of
the "Naval History," and Mackenzie's "Life of Perry," the purport of the
note was entirely changed. The concluding portion was dishonestly (p. 223)
omitted, and a paragraph that gave to the victor of Lake Erie credit for
generalship rather than soldiership was converted into an assertion that
the risk he had run was of slight consequence.
This controversy brought in its train another libel suit. To the editor
of the "Commercial Advertiser" the result had caused deep mortification.
The reviewer also was naturally dissatisfied with a decision which left
upon him the stigma of a libeler. He offered, if the case could be
brought before a common jury for another trial, to pay double the amount
of damages awarded, provided the result was against him. With such an
arrangement Mr. Stone declined to have anything to do. He had had, he
said, annoyance enough already with the suit. But he was tempted in a
moment of vexation to indulge in remarks which implied that Cooper was
in a hurry to get the sum awarded, with the object of putting it into
Wall Street "for shaving purposes." The insinuation was uncalled for and
unjustifiable; and as the editor subsequently admitted that it was only
made in jest, it may be imputed to his credit that he had the grace to
be ashamed of it. A libel suit, however, followed. It was at first
decided in Cooper's favor. It was then carried up to the Court of
Errors, and in December, 1845, more than a year after Mr. Stone's death,
that tribunal reversed the decision. The result of the trial was hailed
with the keenest delight by the Whig press of the state. "The Great
Persecutor," as he was sometimes styled, had been finally foiled. "The
rights of the press," said one of the newspapers, "are at last
triumphant over the tyranny of courts and the vile constructions of the
law of libel." The value of the victory, however, was largely lessened
by the little respect in which the Court of Errors was held. This (p. 224)
tribunal, which consisted in the majority of cases of the Chancellor and
of the members of the state Senate, was swept away by the Constitution
of 1846. Its influence had gone long before. Cooper was doubtless giving
expression to the general feeling as well as venting his own indignation
at this particular decision when he spoke of it, as he did a little
later, as a "pitiful imitation of the House of Lords' system," by which
a body of "small lawyers, country doctors, merchants, farmers," with
occasionally a man of ability, were constituted the highest tribunal in
the state.
Two other results followed incidentally this controversy about the
battle of Lake Erie. One had the nature of comedy, the other partook
rather of that of tragedy. Perry, as has been said, was a Rhode
Islander, and many of the men he had with him had come from that state.
Tristam Burges, in his lecture, had, in many instances, allowed his
eloquence to get the better of his sense. In the preface to it, when
published, he abandoned the latter altogether. He twice asserted, and
gave his reasons for it, that "the fleet and battle of Erie" were to be
regarded "as a part of the maritime affairs of Rhode Island."
Apparently, however, the whole state took the same view. There seemed to
be a feeling prevalent in it that its own reputation lay in destroying
the reputation of Perry's second in command. In 1845 Elliott had a medal
struck in honor of Cooper. It bore on one side the head of the author
surrounded by the words, "The Personification of Honor, Truth, and
Justice." At the suggestion of John Quincy Adams copies were sent to the
various historical societies of the country. That statesman himself
undertook their transmission. Accordingly one was forwarded among (p. 225)
the rest to the Rhode Island Society. It reached its destination in
March. It threw that body into a tumult of excitement. The trustees
reflected upon it anxiously. They referred it to a committee. After
prolonged brooding the committee gave birth to a preamble and two
resolutions. These were reported to the Society at the meeting of the
10th of September. In one of the resolutions the letter of Adams was
embodied, and he was thanked for the care and attention he had displayed
in the discharge of the trust committed to him by Commodore Elliott. The
second resolution recited substantially that Cooper had not been
conducting himself properly in the matter, and had published opinions
which the Society could not adopt or sanction. It therefore declined to
accept the medal in his honor, and directed the president to transmit it
to Adams with the request to return it to Commodore Elliott. Vigorous as
this action may now seem, it did not then come up to the level of
offended justice. There was to be no tampering with iniquity, even in
high places. Elliott was not to succeed in his impudent effort to skulk
behind the character of Adams, nor was Adams to escape reproof for the
base uses to which he had allowed himself to be put. A motion was
accordingly made to strike out the resolution conveying to that
statesman the thanks of the Society. It was carried unanimously. The
medal was accordingly returned to him with the request that he send it
to Elliott with an attested copy of the resolution. Adams's conception
of an Historical Society was different from that then entertained in
Rhode Island. He clearly thought it no part of their business to be
officially engaged in upholding the reputation of favorite sons, (p. 226)
or defending the character of heroes. His reply was curt, not to say
tart. "I decline the office," he wrote, "requested of me by the
Historical Society of Rhode Island, and hold the medal and the copy of
the resolution, which they request me to transmit to Commodore Elliott,
to be delivered to any person whom they, or you by their direction, may
authorize to receive them."
Cooper apparently said nothing about this action at the time. He had
before been solemnly warned by the Providence newspapers not to risk a
controversy with Burges, or, as they more graphically expressed it, not
to "get into the talons of the bald-headed eagle of Rhode Island." The
threatened danger, however, had not deterred him from exposing the
absurdities into which even eagles fall when they use their pinions for
writing and not for flying. Not even did he have the fear of the
Historical Society itself before his eyes. In 1850 he took occasion to
pay his respects to that body. He was then bringing out a revised
edition of his novels. In the preface to "The Red Rover," he mentioned
the stone tower at Newport, and referred to the way in which he had been
assailed for his irreverence in calling it a mill. He repeated this
assertion as to its character. He expressed his belief that the building
was more probably built upon arches to defend grain from mice than men
from savages. "We trust," he added, "this denial of the accuracy of what
may be a favorite local theory will not draw upon us any new evidence of
the high displeasure of the Rhode Island Historical Society, an
institution which displayed such a magnanimous sense of the right, so
much impartiality, and so profound an understanding of the laws of
nature and of the facts of the day, on a former occasion when we (p. 227)
incurred its displeasure, that we really dread a second encounter with
its philosophy, its historical knowledge, its wit, and its signal love
of justice. Little institutions, like little men, very naturally have a
desire to get on stilts; a circumstance that may possibly explain the
theory of this extraordinary and very useless fortification. We prefer
the truth and common sense to any other mode of reasoning, not having
the honor to be an Historical Society at all." No reply, at least no
public reply, came from that quarter during his life, to the views he
had expressed. It was only when he was unable to defend himself that he
was again assailed. In February, 1852, an account of the battle of Lake
Erie was delivered before the Rhode Island Historical Society by Usher
Parsons, who had been assistant surgeon on board the Lawrence. His
testimony had been somewhat severely criticised by Cooper. Now that the
latter was in his grave he took occasion to cast imputations upon the
motives of the historian, and asperse the honesty of his statements.
Parsons added nothing new of moment to the discussion, for what he said
was merely a rehash, made in a very bungling way, of the old facts and
assertions. But the spirit in which he wrote and the insinuations in
which he indulged furnish ample justification for the low opinion which
Cooper held of the evidence he had previously given.
With the parting shot in the preface to "The Red Rover," the
controversy, on Cooper's part, concluded. He had, however, been
concerned in another matter, in which the fortunes of his own work and
the fortunes of one of its critics were strangely blended. In 1841 an
abridged edition of his "Naval History" was brought out in one (p. 228)
volume. The publisher was desirous of having it included in the list of
books purchased for the district school libraries of New York. With this
object in view he offered it, without Cooper's knowledge, to the
Secretary of State, John C. Spencer, who was also superintendent of
public instruction. To him was confided, by virtue of his office, the
selection of the works which should constitute these libraries. He
rejected the proposal with uncomplimentary brevity. He would have
nothing to do, he informed the publisher, with so partisan a
performance. Soon after this he emphasized his opinion of its
partisanship by directing the purchase of Mackenzie's "Life of Perry"--a
work which was almost avowedly one-sided. There was a retribution almost
poetical in the tragedy that followed; for the same lack of mental
balance and judgment that had been exhibited in this biography of Perry
was to show itself under circumstances peculiarly harrowing. In October,
1841, Spencer joined the administration of John Tyler as Secretary of
War. In December, 1842, Mackenzie, then in command of the United States
brig Somers, gave a still further proof of his impartiality by hanging
on the high seas Spencer's son, an acting midshipman, for alleged
mutiny. It was done without even going through the formality of a trial.
It was an act of manslaughter, not committed, indeed, from any feeling
of malice, but merely from the same lack of judgment that he had
displayed in the literary controversy in which he had been engaged.
Mackenzie was brought before a naval court-martial, and succeeded with
some difficulty in securing an acquittal. In 1844 the proceedings of the
trial were published, and annexed to them was an elaborate review of the
case by Cooper. It was written in a calm and temperate tone, but (p. 229)
it practically settled the question of the character of the act.
Cooper's interest in the navy led him also to write a series of lives of
officers who had been prominent in its history. The first of these
appeared originally in "Graham's Magazine" for October, 1842, and the
others are scattered through the volumes of that year and the years
succeeding. In 1846 they were published in book form. Among them was a
life of Perry. In this he took occasion to reaffirm what he had
previously said about the battle of Lake Erie. But the injustice which
had been done to him did not lead him to treat with injustice the man
whose life he was writing, though it was impossible for him to say what
would be satisfactory to Perry's partisans without falsifying what he
believed to be the truth.
In spite of the numerous attacks made upon it the "Naval History" was
successful, as success is measured in technical works of this kind. A
second edition, revised and corrected, appeared in April, 1840, and in
1847 a third edition was published. At the time of his death Cooper was
projecting a continuation of it, and had gathered together materials for
that purpose. The original work ended with the close of the last war
with Great Britain. He intended to bring it down to the end of the
Mexican War. This was done by another after his death. In 1853 a new
edition of the "Naval History" appeared with a continuation prepared by
the Reverend Charles W. McHarg. The matter that Cooper had collected
was used, but there was very little in what was added that was of his
own composition. Of the original work, it is safe to say, that for the
period which it covers it is little likely to be superseded as the (p. 230)
standard history of the American navy. Later investigation may show
some of the author's assertions to be erroneous. Some of his conclusions
may turn out as mistaken as have his prophecies about the use of steam
in war vessels. But such defects, assuming that they exist, are more
than counterbalanced by advantages which make it a final authority on
points that can never again be so fully considered. Many sources of
information which were then accessible no longer exist. The men who
shared in the scenes described, and who communicated information
directly to Cooper, have all passed away. These are losses that can
never be replaced, even were it reasonable to expect that the same
practical knowledge, the same judicial spirit, and the same power of
graphic description could be found united again in the same person.