The British journals and naval historians laid very great stress on the rotten and decayed condition of the Guerrière; mentioning particularly that the main-mast fell solely because of the weight of the falling fore-mast. But until the action took place she was considered a very fine ship. Dacres declared, some time before, that she could take a ship in half the time the Shannon could. The fall of her main-mast occurred when the fight was practically over; it had no influence whatever on the conflict. “It was also asserted that the Guerrière’s powder was bad; but on no authority. Her first broadside fell short; * * * * but none of these causes account for the fact that her shot did not hit. Her opponent was of such superior force—nearly in the proportion of three to two—that success would have been very difficult in any event, and no one can doubt the gallantry and pluck with which the British ship was fought; but the execution was very greatly disproportioned to the force.
The gunnery of the Guerrière was very poor, and that of the Constitution excellent. During the few minutes the ships were yard-arm and yard-arm, the latter was not hulled once, while no less than thirty of her shot took effect on the Guerrière’s engaged side, underneath the waterline. The Guerrière, moreover, was out-manœuvred. Lord Howard Douglass says, “in wearing several times and exchanging broadsides in such rapid and continual changes of position, her fire was much more harmless than it would have been if she had kept more steady.” The Constitution was faultlessly handled. Captain Hull displayed the coolness and skill of a veteran, in the way in which he managed, first to avoid being raked, and then to improve the advantage which the precision and rapidity of his fire had gained.
Cooper says, “After making every allowance claimed by the enemy, the character of this victory is not essentially altered. Its peculiarities were a fine display of seamanship in the approach, extraordinary efficiency in the attack, and great readiness in repairing damages; all of which denote cool and capable officers, with an expert and trained crew; in a word, a disciplined man-of-war.” The disparity of force, 10 to 7, is not enough to account for the disparity of execution, 10 to 2. Of course, something must be allowed for the decayed state of the Englishman’s masts, although it probably had not any real influence upon the battle, for he was beaten when the main-mast fell. It must be remembered, on the other hand, that the American crew were absolutely new, and unaccustomed to a fighting ship, while the Guerrière was manned by old hands. So that, while admitting and admiring the gallantry, and, on the whole, the seamanship, of Captain Dacres and his crew, and acknowledging that he fought at a disadvantage, especially in being short-handed, yet it must be acknowledged that the combat showed a marked superiority, particularly in gunnery, on the part of the Americans. Had the ships not come foul, Captain Hull would probably not have lost more than three or four men; as it was, he suffered but slightly. That the Guerrière was not so weak as she was represented to be, can be gathered from the fact that she mounted two more main-deck guns than the rest of her class; thus carrying on her main-deck 30 long 18-pounders in battery, to oppose to the 30 long 24’s, or rather (allowing for the short weight of shot), long 22’s of the Constitution.
“Characteristically enough, James, though he carefully reckons in the long bow-chasers in the bridle-ports of the Argus and Enterprise, yet refuses to count the two long eighteens mounted through the bridle-ports on the Guerrière’s main-deck. Now, as it turned out, these two bow-guns were used very effectively when the ships got foul, and caused more damage and loss than all of the other main-deck guns put together.”
Captain Dacres, very much to his credit, allowed the ten Americans he had on board to go below, so as not to fight against their flag, and, upon his court-martial, stated that “he was very much weakened by permitting the Americans on board to quit their quarters.” “Coupling this with the assertion made by James, and most other British writers, that the Constitution was largely manned by Englishmen, we reach the somewhat remarkable conclusion, that the British ship was defeated because the Americans on board would not fight against their country, and that the American was victorious because the British on board would.”
PERRY’S VICTORY ON LAKE ERIE.