[29] In March, 1780, the navy of the United States consisted of the following vessels:—
| America 74, Capt. John Barry, on the stocks at Portsmouth, N. H. | ||
| Confederacy 36, Capt. Seth Harding, refitting at Martinico. | ||
| Bourbon 36, Capt. Thomas Read, on the stocks in Connecticut. | ||
| Alliance 32, Capt. Paul Jones, in France. | ||
| Trumbull 28, Capt. James Nicholson, ready for sea in Connecticut. | ||
| Deane 28, Capt. Samuel Nicholson, on a cruise. | ||
| Providence 28, Capt. Abraham Whipple, Boston 28, Capt. Samuel Tucker, Queen of France 20, Capt. I. Rathbourne, Ranger 18, Capt. S. Sampson, | } | defending the harbour of Charleston, S.C. |
| Saratoga 18, Capt. J. Young, on the stocks at Philadelphia. | ||
See Sparks MSS. xlix. vol. iii. in Harvard University Library.
[30] Richard Paton’s picture of this sea-fight, of which a photogravure is here given, departs somewhat from the strict truth of history, as is apt to be the case with historical pictures. The Alliance is represented in the act of delivering her impartial volley into the stern of the Serapis and the bow of the Bon Homme Richard, which occurred soon after ten o’clock. At the same time the mainmast of the Serapis is represented as overboard, whereas it did not fall until the ships were separated after the surrender, as late as half past eleven. Apart from this inaccuracy, the general conception of the picture is admirable. The engraving, published in 1780, was dedicated to Sir Richard Pearson, the captain of the Serapis, who was deservedly knighted for his heroic resistance, which saved the Baltic fleet, although he was worsted in the fight. There is a tradition that Paul Jones, on hearing of the honour conferred upon Pearson, good-naturedly observed, “If I ever meet him again I’ll make a lord of him.”
[31] Agricultural communities lack the right kind of experience for understanding the real nature of money, and farmers are peculiarly subject to financial delusions. This has been illustrated again and again in American history, with lamentable consequences, from the Massachusetts issue of “paper money” in 1690 down to the drivelling schemes of the silver lunatics at the present time.
[32] The story of his attempt to enter the service of Luzerne, the French minister who succeeded Gerard, rests upon insufficient authority.
[33] The charge against Mrs. Arnold, in Parton’s Life of Burr, i. 126, is conclusively refuted by Sabine, in his Loyalists of the American Revolution, i. 172-178. I think there can be no doubt that Burr lied.
[34] The version of the reprimand given by Marbois, however, is somewhat apocryphal.
[35] To a gentleman, like Clinton, such a proposal was a gross insult, to which the only fitting answer would have been, “What do you take me for?” The scheme was highly discreditable to all concerned, and if Washington was one of these, it must be pronounced a blot upon his record. The only explanation would be that the “vague sense of injustice” mentioned below must have been felt by him so keenly as to warp for the moment his moral judgment.
[36] In 1782, the British government granted him a pension of £1,000 a year for his lifetime and that of his wife. Arnold died in 1801, Mrs. Arnold in 1804.