his command. Her colors were not struck until the loss in killed and wounded was so awfully great and her shattered condition so seriously bad as to render all further resistance unavailing." 269
He also bears very candid testimony to the defence of the Essex having been effective enough to at one time render the result doubtful, saying: "Our first attack * * * produced no visible effect. Our second * * * was not more successful; and having lost the use of our main-sail, jib, and main-stay, appearances looked a little inauspicious." Throughout the war no ship was so desperately defended as the Essex, taking into account the frightful odds against which she fought, which always enhances the merit of a defence. The Lawrence, which suffered even more, was backed by a fleet; the Frolic was overcome by an equal foe; and the Reindeer fought at far less of a disadvantage, and suffered less. None of the frigates, British or American, were defended with any thing like the resolution she displayed.
But it is perhaps permissible to inquire whether Porter's course, after the accident to his top-mast occurred, was altogether the best that could have been taken. On such a question no opinion could have been better than Farragut's, although of course his judgment was ex post facto, as he was very young at the time of the fight.
"In the first place, I consider our original and greatest error was in attempting to regain the anchorage; being greatly superior in sailing powers we should have borne up and run before the wind. If we had come in contact with the Phoebe we should have carried her by boarding; if she avoided us, as she might have done by her greater ability to manoeuvre, then we should have taken her fire and passed on, leaving both vessels behind until we had replaced our top-mast, by which time they would have been separated, as unless they did so it would have been no chase, the Cherub being a dull sailer.
"Secondly, when it was apparent to everybody that we had no chance of success under the circumstances, the ship should have been run ashore, throwing her broadside to the beach to prevent raking, and fought as long as was consistent with humanity, and then set on fire. But having determined upon anchoring we should have bent a spring on to the ring of the anchor, instead of to the cable, where it was exposed, and could be shot away as fast as put on."
But it must be remembered that when Porter decided to anchor near shore, in neutral water, he could not anticipate Hilyar's deliberate and treacherous breach of faith. I do not allude to the mere disregard of neutrality. Whatever international moralists may say, such disregard is a mere question of expediency. If the benefits to be gained by attacking a hostile ship in neutral waters are such as to counterbalance the risk of incurring the enmity of the neutral power, why then the attack ought to be made. Had Hilyar, when he first made his appearance off Valparaiso, sailed in with his two ships, the men at quarters and guns out, and at once attacked Porter, considering the destruction of the Essex as outweighing the insult to Chili, why his behavior would have been perfectly justifiable. In fact this is unquestionably what he intended to do, but he suddenly found himself in such a position, that in the even of hostilities, his ship would be the captured one, and he owed his escape purely to Porter's over-forbearance, under great provocation Then he gave his word to Potter that he would not infringe on the neutrality; and he never dared to break it, until he saw Porter was disabled and almost helpless! This may seem strong language to use about a British officer, but it is justly strong. Exactly as any outsider must consider Warrington's attack on the British brig Nautilus in 1815, as a piece of needless cruelty; so any outsider must consider Hilyar as having most treacherously broken faith with Porter.
After the fight Hilyar behaved most kindly and courteously to the prisoners; and, as already said, he fought his ship most ably, for it would have been quixotic to a degree to forego his advantages. But previous to the battle his conduct had been over-cautious. It was to be expected that the Essex would make her escape as soon as practicable, and so he should have used every effort to bring her to action. Instead of this he always declined the fight when alone; and he owed his ultimate success to the fact that the Essex instead of escaping, as she could several times have done, stayed, hoping to bring the Phoebe to action single-handed. It must be remembered that the Essex was almost as weak compared to the Phoebe, as the Cherub was compared to the Essex. The latter was just about midway between the British ships, as may be seen by the following comparison. In the action the Essex fought all six of her long 12's, and the Cherub both her long 9's, instead of the corresponding broadside carronades which the ships regularly used. This gives the Essex a better armament than she would have had fighting her guns as they were regularly used; but it can be seen how great the inequality still was. It must also be kept in mind, that while in the battles between the American 44's and British 38's, the short weight 24-pounders of the former had in reality no greater range or accuracy than the full weight 18's of their opponents, in this case the Phoebe's full weight 18's had a very much greater range and accuracy than the short weight 12's of the Essex.
All accounts agree as to the armament of the Essex. I have taken that of the Phoebe and Cherub from James; but Captain Porter's official letter, and all the other American accounts make the Phoebe's broadside 15 long 18's and 8 short 32's, and give the Cherub, in all, 18 short 32's, 8 short 24's, and two long nines. This would make their broadside 904 lbs., 288 long, 616 short. I would have no doubt that the American accounts were right if the question rested solely on James' veracity; but he probably took his figures from official sources. At any rate, remembering the difference between long guns and carronades, it appears that the Essex was really nearly intermediate in force between the Phoebe and the Cherub. The battle being fought, with a very trifling exception, at long range, it was in reality a conflict between a crippled ship throwing a broadside of 66 lbs. of metal, and two ships throwing 273 lbs., who by their ability to manoeuvre could choose positions where they could act with full effect, while their antagonist could not return a shot. Contemporary history does not afford a single instance of so determined a defence against such frightful odds.
The official letters of Captains Hilyar and Porter agree substantially in all respects; the details of the fight, as seen in the Essex, are found in the "Life of Farragut." But although the British captain does full justice to his foe, British historians have universally tried to belittle Porter's conduct. It is much to be regretted that we have no British account worth paying attention to of the proceedings before the fight, when the Phoebe declined single combat with the Essex. James, of course, states that the Phoebe did not decline it, but he gives no authority, and his unsupported assertion would be valueless even if uncontradicted. His account of the action is grossly inaccurate as he has inexcusably garbled Hilyar's report. One instance of this I have already mentioned, as regards Hilyar's account of Porter's loss. Again, Hilyar distinctly states that the Essex was twice on fire, yet James (p. 418) utterly denies this, thereby impliedly accusing the British captain of falsehood. There is really no need of the corroboration of Porter's letter, but he has it most fully in the "Life of Farragut," p. 37: "The men came rushing up from below, many with their clothes burning, which were torn from them as quickly as possible, and those for whom this could not be done were told to jump overboard and quench the flames. * * * One man swam to shore with scarcely a square inch of his body which had not been burned, and, although he was deranged for some days, he ultimately recovered, and afterward served with me in the West Indies." The third unfounded statement in James' account is that buckets of spirits were found in all parts of the main deck of the Essex, and that most of the prisoners were drunk. No authority is cited for this, and there is not a shadow of truth in it. He ends by stating that "few even in his own country will venture to speak well of Captain David Porter." After these various paragraphs we are certainly justified in rejecting James' account in toto. An occasional mistake is perfectly excusable, and gross ignorance of a good many facts does not invalidate a man's testimony with regard to some others with which he is acquainted; but a wilful and systematic perversion of the truth in a number of cases throws a very strong doubt on a historian's remaining statements, unless they are supported by unquestionable
